Veena Gupta v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
present writ petition is dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to the petitioner
Provisions considered
- U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 ss. 28A(4), 41(3)
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 41(3) of the aforesaid Act, if so advised. April 23, 2026 Anil…
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State, and perused the record.
The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated
10.07.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Aligarh Division, Aligarh- respondent no.2 in Case No. 962 of 2024, titled Veena Gupta v. Vice Chairman, Aligarh Development Authority, under Section 28A(4) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, as well as the order dated
22.08.2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, Aligarh Development Authority, Aligarh in Case No. A.L.D.A./A.N.I./2024/0001455 of 2024-25 under Section 28A(1) of the said Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not wish to press the present petition at this stage and seeks liberty to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
Operative part
In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 41(3) of the aforesaid Act, if so advised. April 23, 2026 Anil K. Sharma (Vinod Diwakar,J.) ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: present writ petition is dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to the petitioner
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 — ss. 28A(4), 41(3).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.