Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Special Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And

Heard Shri Sharad Pathak, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sunpreet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of State-Respondent, Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4, Shri Yogendra Nath Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.5 and perused the pleadings on record. This petition has been filed with the following main prayers : "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned orders dated 17.09.2022 & 21.08.2020 passed by opposite party no. 2 & opposite party no. 4 respectively (annexed as Annexure Nos. 1 & 2) and all other further consequential actions including impugned notice dated 30.10.2025 (annexed as Annexure No. 3) for demolition the premises of the petitioner, if any may also be quashed. (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing opposite parties no. 2, 3 & 4 to allow compounding application of the petitioners for compounding of construction of the petitioners." It is the case of the petitioners that certain proceedings were initiated by the Lucknow Development Authority (L.D.A.) against respondent nos.6 and 7 sometime in the year 2020 in which the petitioners were not made parties. These proceedings were related the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and respondent nos.6 and 7 participated in the said proceedings without giving any intimation to the petitioners that the land on 2 WRIC No. 11433 of 2025 which they had constructed the apartments of which the petitioners are bona fide purchasers fell within the jurisdiction of the L.D.A. and the sanctioning of the map was not done by the L.D.A. but was instead done by the Zila Panchayat, Lucknow, on 12.08.2014. Since the building was already constructed, the petitioners, being unaware of the proceedings, purchased flats in the said residential building from respondent no.6 after paying due sale consideration. Suddenly, in the afternoon of 13.11.2025, some of the flat owners of the residential building called one of the petitioners and informed him about a notice dated

30.10.2025 affixed on the ground floor of part of the residential building. It was only then that the petitioners came to know that orders had been passed against respondent nos.6 and 7 by the prescribed authority, L.D.A. An appeal against those orders had also been dismissed and a notice had been issued on 30.10.2025 to respondent nos.6 and 7 regarding the proposed demolition of the building in question on 14.11.2025. The petitioners contacted a lawyer, the writ petition was drafted and notice was served upon the respondents as a result of which the demolition proceedings did not go forward. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the L.D.A. has pointed out from the impugned orders that it is evident that the prescribed authority had passed an order way back on 21.08.2020 against which an appeal was filed under Section 27(2) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. That appeal was also dismissed on 17.09.2022. In the appellate order, there is a specific reference to Government Order dated 20.10.2014, which was issued with respect to the jurisdiction of the Zila Panchayat for sanctioning building maps for residential and commercial complexes. All Upper Mukhya Adhikaris have been prohibited from sanctioning such maps in areas falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the development authorities of the concerned towns. Learned counsel for the respondents has further pointed out that since 1974 the development area of the L.D.A. has been notified to extend to a radius of 8 km from the municipal corporation limits and Village Laulai was included in a notification of more than 100 villages that came within the development area of the L.D.A. in 2009. Learned counsel for the respondents has also pointed out that the petitioners 3 WRIC No. 11433 of 2025 have an alternative remedy under Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and they have not availed the remedy of revision before the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, has pointed out that the notification dated 27.01.2009 does mention Village Laulai at serial no. 83, but only part of Village Laulai has been notified to fall within the development area of the L.D.A. which part of Village Laulai falls within such development area has not been determined either by the prescribed authority or by the appellate authority. It has been submitted that even otherwise, respondent nos.6 and 7 had profited by constructing the building and selling to bona fide purchasers/flat owners. They had no substantive interest in pursuing their case before the prescribed or appellate authorities and the case was prosecuted in a casual and incomplete manner. They also did not inform the petitioners about the pending proceedings. The petitioners have spent their lifetime savings in purchasing flats in the building in question and it has now been proposed to be demolished on the basis of the impugned orders, even though the petitioners who are residing in the flats were never issued any notice regarding the said proceedings. The petitioners shall be given two weeks' time to file a revision before the State Government under Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 along with an application for interim relief. The application for interim relief shall be considered by the Secretary/State Government within one week from the date of filing of such revision. The order on such application shall be passed within a period of four weeks thereafter taking into account that the petitioners appear to be bona fide purchasers who have been misled by respondent nos.6 and 7 into buying such flats. For a period of eight weeks or till the decision is taken by the State Government in this regard, the order of demolition shall remain in abeyance. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. November 21, 2025 Mahesh (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard Shri Sharad Pathak, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sunpreet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of State-Respondent, Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4, Shri Yogendra Nath Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.5 and perused the pleadings on record. This petition has been filed with the following main prayers : "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned orders dated 17.09.2022 & 21.08.2020 passed by opposite party no. 2 & opposite party no. 4 respectively (annexed as Annexure Nos. 1 & 2) and all other further consequential actions including impugned notice dated 30.10.2025 (annexed as Annexure No. 3) for demolition the premises of the petitioner, if any may also be quashed. (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing opposite parties no. 2, 3 & 4 to allow compounding application of the petitioners for compounding of construction of the petitioners." It is the case of the petitioners that certain proceedings were initiated by the Lucknow Development Authority (L.D.A.) against respondent nos.6 and 7 sometime in the year 2020 in which the petitioners were not made parties. These proceedings were related the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and respondent nos.6 and 7 participated in the said proceedings without giving any intimation to the petitioners that the land on 2 WRIC No. 11433 of 2025 which they had constructed the apartments of which the petitioners are bona fide purchasers fell within the jurisdiction of the L.D.A. and the sanctioning of the map was not done by the L.D.A. but was instead done by the Zila Panchayat, Lucknow, on 12.08.2014. Since the building was already constructed, the petitioners, being unaware of the proceedings, purchased flats in the said residential building from respondent no.6 after paying due sale consideration. Suddenly, in the afternoon of 13.11.2025, some of the flat owners of the residential building called one of the petitioners and informed him about a notice dated

30.10.2025 affixed on the ground floor of part of the residential building. It was only then that the petitioners came to know that orders had been passed against respondent nos.6 and 7 by the prescribed authority, L.D.A. An appeal against those orders had also been dismissed and a notice had been issued on 30.10.2025 to respondent nos.6 and 7 regarding the proposed demolition of the building in question on 14.11.2025. The petitioners contacted a lawyer, the writ petition was drafted and notice was served upon the respondents as a result of which the demolition proceedings did not go forward. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the L.D.A. has pointed out from the impugned orders that it is evident that the prescribed authority had passed an order way back on 21.08.2020 against which an appeal was filed under Section 27(2) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. That appeal was also dismissed on 17.09.2022. In the appellate order, there is a specific reference to Government Order dated 20.10.2014, which was issued with respect to the jurisdiction of the Zila Panchayat for sanctioning building maps for residential and commercial complexes. All Upper Mukhya Adhikaris have been prohibited from sanctioning such maps in areas falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the development authorities of the concerned towns. Learned counsel for the respondents has further pointed out that since 1974 the development area of the L.D.A. has been notified to extend to a radius of 8 km from the municipal corporation limits and Village Laulai was included in a notification of more than 100 villages that came within the development area of the L.D.A. in 2009. Learned counsel for the respondents has also pointed out that the petitioners 3 WRIC No. 11433 of 2025 have an alternative remedy under Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and they have not availed the remedy of revision before the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, has pointed out that the notification dated 27.01.2009 does mention Village Laulai at serial no. 83, but only part of Village Laulai has been notified to fall within the development area of the L.D.A. which part of Village Laulai falls within such development area has not been determined either by the prescribed authority or by the appellate authority. It has been submitted that even otherwise, respondent nos.6 and 7 had profited by constructing the building and selling to bona fide purchasers/flat owners. They had no substantive interest in pursuing their case before the prescribed or appellate authorities and the case was prosecuted in a casual and incomplete manner. They also did not inform the petitioners about the pending proceedings. The petitioners have spent their lifetime savings in purchasing flats in the building in question and it has now been proposed to be demolished on the basis of the impugned orders, even though the petitioners who are residing in the flats were never issued any notice regarding the said proceedings. The petitioners shall be given two weeks' time to file a revision before the State Government under Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 along with an application for interim relief. The application for interim relief shall be considered by the Secretary/State Government within one week from the date of filing of such revision. The order on such application shall be passed within a period of four weeks thereafter taking into account that the petitioners appear to be bona fide purchasers who have been misled by respondent nos.6 and 7 into buying such flats. For a period of eight weeks or till the decision is taken by the State Government in this regard, the order of demolition shall remain in abeyance. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. November 21, 2025 Mahesh (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench