Susheel Kumar Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning U.P. Lko. And
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for the State-Respondents, Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing for L.D.A. in Writ C No.5017 of 2023 and Shri Saurabh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 to 6 in Writ C No.8803 of 2025. Writ Petition No.5017 of 2023 has been filed by Suraj Yadav, Satish Yadav and Manish Yadav, all sons of Ganesh Yadav, challenging the order passed by the Prescribed Authority directing demolition of the alleged unauthorized construction being raised by the petitioners as well as the order passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, in appeal. It has been submitted that on the basis of the order passed by the 2 WRIC No. 8803 of 2025 Prescribed Authority and in appeal, a notice was issued on
25.05.2023 by respondent no.7, Zonal Officer, Enforcement Zone-5, Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow, whereby the Zonal Officer directed the petitioners to remove their unauthorized construction themselves within a period of 15 days, failing which, the same would be demolished by the L.D.A. When the writ petition was filed, an interim order was granted by this Court on 13.06.2023 directing the exchange of pleadings, and in the meantime, it was directed that no demolition shall take place in pursuance of the impugned order. It appears that Susheel Kumar Yadav, the complainant, who had made a complaint to the L.D.A. on the basis of which action was initiated against the petitioners, filed Writ-C No.8803 of 2025, arraying the petitioners, namely, Sooraj Yadav, Satish Yadav and Manish Yadav, sons of Ganesh Yadav as respondent nos.8 to 10, praying for a direction to the respondent nos.1 to 7 to take coercive action and stop the illegal and unauthorized construction of respondent nos.8 to 10 and to demolish the unauthorized construction made by them over the road within the time period specified by the Court. this writ petition recorded This Court, while entertaining submissions of Shri Saurabh Yadav, who appears for the respondent nos.2 to 6 i.e. L.D.A. that another writ petition relating to the same property i.e. Writ C No.5017 of 2023 was pending. Accordingly, this Court directed that Writ-C No.8803 of 2025 be connected with Writ-C No.5017 of 2023. Today, both the matters have come up together. Since Writ C No.5017 of 2023 was filed earlier in point of time, we have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the said writ petitions. Shri Sameer Singh, learned counsel has informed this Court that as is evident from the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, when notice was issued to the petitioners, they have filed their objections stating that the construction alleged to have been raised recently was, in fact, 35 years old and no new construction was being carried out by them. Upon such objection been filed, the Prescribed Authority issued two orders to the Assistant Engineer of the Enforcement Cell 3 WRIC No. 8803 of 2025 Zone-5 on 07.06.2022 and again on 04.08.2022 asking for a fresh report along with photographs relating to any construction being carried out by the petitioners, Sooraj Yadav and his two brothers. No such report was submitted by the Assistant Engineer, Zone-5 to the Prescribed Authority. Without considering the objections made by the petitioners stating that the construction was old and no new construction was being carried out by them, the impugned order was passed by the Prescribed Authority only on the ground that the existing construction on the property in question had been made without sanction of building plans. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners, Sooraj Yadav and others that since it is admitted by the respondents themselves that the colony in which the petitioners' house is situated, is an unregularized colony and no layout plan has been sanctioned for such unregularized colony, there could be no question of sanctioning a building plan either. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out that while filing the appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority the petitioners had specifically raised a ground regarding the non- submission of a fresh inspection report by the Assistant Engineer, Zone-5, in compliance of the directions issued by the Prescribed Authority. The case of the petitioners regarding their construction being 35 years old and no new instruction being raised was not considered at all. The appellate Authority decided the appeal in great haste, relying only upon the initial report submitted on the complaint made by Susheel Kumar Yadav, which alleged that construction was being raised encroaching upon the road/rasta. We have gone through the copy of the memo of appeal filed along with the writ petition and find that a specific ground was raised regarding non-compliance of the directions of the Prescribed Authority by the Assistant Engineer, Zone-5. It is evident from the order passed by the Prescribed Authority that though it was noted that no fresh report had been submitted by the Assistant Engineer, the Prescribed Authority decided the matter against 4 WRIC No. 8803 of 2025 petitioners, taking into account only the earlier report of the Enforcement Cell that no building plan was sanctioned, which was in violation of Section 14 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. Shri Susheel Kumar Yadav, the writ petitioner in Writ-C No.8803 of 2025 has stated in his writ petition that he had purchased 880 square feet of land in Khasra No.140, area 0.4300 hectare situated at Village Kalyanpur, Pargana, Tehsil and District Lucknow on 15.01.2008 from all three brothers i.e. Sooraj Yadav, Satish Yadav and Manish Yadav (respondent nos.8 to 10). A copy of the sale deed reveals that the plot of the petitioner was bounded on the east by the plot of some other persons, on the north by the plot of some other persons, on the south by the plot of Ram Sagar Kannojia and on the west by 15 feet wide road. It is the case of the petitioner, Susheel Kumar Yadav that this 15 feet wide road has been encroached upon by respondent nos.8 to 10 i.e. Sooraj Yadav, Satish Yadav and Manish Yadav. He moved an application in this regard initially before the District Magistrate, Lucknow and later before the Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority, on the basis of which proceedings were initiated and notices were issued under Section 27 (1) of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 to the respondent nos.8 to 10. Case No.452 of 2021 "L.D.A. vs. Ganesh Prashad and others" was decided on 02.09.2022, directing the respondent nos.8 to 10 to demolish the construction raised without a sanctioned map. The appeal filed by the respondent nos.8 to 10 was dismissed on 17.04.2023, but the L.D.A. did not proceed with the demolition only because the respondent nos.8 to 10 had filed Writ-C No.5017 of 2023 in which an interim order was passed by this Court on 13.06.2023. It is the case of the petitioner, Susheel Kumar Yadav that Khasra No.140 is a large piece of land measuring 0.4300 hectares, situated at Village Kalyanpur. He had obtained the land from three brothers on the understanding that he would be allowed to raise his construction and build his residential house with 15 feet wide road on the western side for ingress and egress. Now, since this oral understanding has 5 WRIC No. 8803 of 2025 been violated by the respondent nos.8 to 10, he was compelled to approach the L.D.A. We find that the order passed in appeal by the respondent no.2 was passed without considering the grounds raised by the writ petitioners, Sooraj Kumar Yadav and his two brothers. Accordingly, the order passed in appeal is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent no.2 to decide afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to Susheel Kumar Yadav, writ petitioner in Writ C No.8803 of
2025. It is expected that the parties shall co-oporate in the hearing of the appeal, which shall be decided expeditiously, say, within a period of three months. For a period of three months, the order of demolition passed by the Prescribed Authority shall remain stayed. Both the writ petitions are disposed of . October 7, 2025 Mahesh (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) MAHESH KUMAR MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for the State-Respondents, Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing for L.D.A. in Writ C No.5017 of 2023 and Shri Saurabh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 to 6 in Writ C No.8803 of 2025. Writ Petition No.5017 of 2023 has been filed by Suraj Yadav, Satish Yadav and Manish Yadav, all sons of Ganesh Yadav, challenging the order passed by the Prescribed Authority directing demolition of the alleged unauthorized construction being raised by the petitioners as well as the order passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, in appeal. It has been submitted that on the basis of the order passed by the 2 WRIC No. 8803 of 2025 Prescribed Authority and in appeal, a notice was issued on
25.05.2023 by respondent no.7, Zonal Officer, Enforcement Zone-5, Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow, whereby the Zonal Officer directed the petitioners to remove their unauthorized construction themselves within a period of 15 days, failing which, the same would be demolished by the L.D.A. When the writ petition was filed, an interim order was granted by this Court on 13.06.2023 directing the exchange of pleadings, and in the meantime, it was directed that no demolition shall take place in pursuance of the impugned order. It appears that Susheel Kumar Yadav, the complainant, who had made a complaint to the L.D.A. on the basis of which action was initiated against the petitioners, filed Writ-C No.8803 of 2025, arraying the petitioners, namely, Sooraj Yadav, Satish Yadav and Manish Yadav, sons of Ganesh Yadav as respondent nos.8 to 10, praying for a direction to the respondent nos.1 to 7 to take coercive action and stop the illegal and unauthorized construction of respondent nos.8 to 10 and to demolish the unauthorized construction made by them over the road within the time period specified by the Court. this writ petition recorded This Court, while entertaining submissions of Shri Saurabh Yadav, who appears for the respondent nos.2 to 6 i.e. L.D.A. that another writ petition relating to the same property i.e. Writ C No.5017 of 2023 was pending. Accordingly, this Court directed that Writ-C No.8803 of 2025 be connected with Writ-C No.5017 of 2023. Today, both the matters have come up together. Since Writ C No.5017 of 2023 was filed earlier in point of time, we have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the said writ petitions. Shri Sameer Singh, learned counsel has informed this Court that as is evident from the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, when notice was issued to the petitioners, they have filed their objections stating that the construction alleged to have been raised recently was, in fact, 35 years old and no new construction was being carried out by them. Upon such objection been filed, the Prescribed Authority issued two orders to the Assistant Engineer of the Enforcement Cell 3 WRIC No. 8803 of 2025 Zone-5 on 07.06.2022 and again on 04.08.2022 asking for a fresh report along with photographs relating to any construction being carried out by the petitioners, Sooraj Yadav and his two brothers. No such report was submitted by the Assistant Engineer, Zone-5 to the Prescribed Authority. Without considering the objections made by the petitioners stating that the construction was old and no new construction was being carried out by them, the impugned order was passed by the Prescribed Authority only on the ground that the existing construction on the property in question had been made without sanction of building plans. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners, Sooraj Yadav and others that since it is admitted by the respondents themselves that the colony in which the petitioners' house is situated, is an unregularized colony and no layout plan has been sanctioned for such unregularized colony, there could be no question of sanctioning a building plan either. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out that while filing the appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority the petitioners had specifically raised a ground regarding the non- submission of a fresh inspection report by the Assistant Engineer, Zone-5, in compliance of the directions issued by the Prescribed Authority. The case of the petitioners regarding their construction being 35 years old and no new instruction being raised was not considered at all. The appellate Authority decided the appeal in great haste, relying only upon the initial report submitted on the complaint made by Susheel Kumar Yadav, which alleged that construction was being raised encroaching upon the road/rasta. We have gone through the copy of the memo of appeal filed along with the writ petition and find that a specific ground was raised regarding non-compliance of the directions of the Prescribed Authority by the Assistant Engineer, Zone-5. It is evident from the order passed by the Prescribed Authority that though it was noted that no fresh report had been submitted by the Assistant Engineer, the Prescribed Authority decided the matter against 4 WRIC No. 8803 of 2025 petitioners, taking into account only the earlier report of the Enforcement Cell that no building plan was sanctioned, which was in violation of Section 14 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. Shri Susheel Kumar Yadav, the writ petitioner in Writ-C No.8803 of 2025 has stated in his writ petition that he had purchased 880 square feet of land in Khasra No.140, area 0.4300 hectare situated at Village Kalyanpur, Pargana, Tehsil and District Lucknow on 15.01.2008 from all three brothers i.e. Sooraj Yadav, Satish Yadav and Manish Yadav (respondent nos.8 to 10). A copy of the sale deed reveals that the plot of the petitioner was bounded on the east by the plot of some other persons, on the north by the plot of some other persons, on the south by the plot of Ram Sagar Kannojia and on the west by 15 feet wide road. It is the case of the petitioner, Susheel Kumar Yadav that this 15 feet wide road has been encroached upon by respondent nos.8 to 10 i.e. Sooraj Yadav, Satish Yadav and Manish Yadav. He moved an application in this regard initially before the District Magistrate, Lucknow and later before the Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority, on the basis of which proceedings were initiated and notices were issued under Section 27 (1) of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 to the respondent nos.8 to 10. Case No.452 of 2021 "L.D.A. vs. Ganesh Prashad and others" was decided on 02.09.2022, directing the respondent nos.8 to 10 to demolish the construction raised without a sanctioned map. The appeal filed by the respondent nos.8 to 10 was dismissed on 17.04.2023, but the L.D.A. did not proceed with the demolition only because the respondent nos.8 to 10 had filed Writ-C No.5017 of 2023 in which an interim order was passed by this Court on 13.06.2023. It is the case of the petitioner, Susheel Kumar Yadav that Khasra No.140 is a large piece of land measuring 0.4300 hectares, situated at Village Kalyanpur. He had obtained the land from three brothers on the understanding that he would be allowed to raise his construction and build his residential house with 15 feet wide road on the western side for ingress and egress. Now, since this oral understanding has 5 WRIC No. 8803 of 2025 been violated by the respondent nos.8 to 10, he was compelled to approach the L.D.A. We find that the order passed in appeal by the respondent no.2 was passed without considering the grounds raised by the writ petitioners, Sooraj Kumar Yadav and his two brothers. Accordingly, the order passed in appeal is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent no.2 to decide afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to Susheel Kumar Yadav, writ petitioner in Writ C No.8803 of
2025. It is expected that the parties shall co-oporate in the hearing of the appeal, which shall be decided expeditiously, say, within a period of three months. For a period of three months, the order of demolition passed by the Prescribed Authority shall remain stayed. Both the writ petitions are disposed of . October 7, 2025 Mahesh (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) MAHESH KUMAR MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench