HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 34574 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Pratik Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri N.K.Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent-Kanpur Development Authority. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the impugned show cause notice dated 06.06.2025 issued by respondent no. 3 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition). With a further prayer for a mandamus restraining the respondent nos. 2 and 3-Kanpur Development Authority not to initiate the coercive measures with regard to demolition/dispossession of the property of the petitioner situated at plot no. 8, Arazi No. 127, area 125.415 square meter, village Sajari, district Kanpur Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have purchased the property in question from respondent no. 4 by registered sale deed dated 24.1.2019 for the sale consideration of Rs. 18,00,000/- and they continued to remain in the possession as no controversy arose with regard to the title/ownership of the property since 2019. He submits that in most arbitrary manner, the Kanpur Development Authority without any right/title over the property in question has invoked the proceeding under Section 26A(4) of the U.P.Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (in short "Act, 1973") for the purpose of demolition of constructions raised by the petitioners, which is per se unsustainable and is liable to be set aside by this Court. He submits that even though against the impugned show cause notice, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pratik Chandra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, C.S.C. Smt. Mithilesh Katiyar And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) the respondent no. 4/builder has already filed a detailed objection on behalf of the petitioners and other residents of Arazi No. 127 to the respondent no. 3 categorically stating therein that the map was duly sanctioned after due formalities by the KDA and thereafter the constructions were raised by the petitioners and other incumbents. The said reply is still pending for consideration. He lastly submits that in case, no reprieve is accorded by this Court, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss. 4. Per contra, Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Development Authority submits that adequate opportunity had been accorded to the persons who were in unauthorised occupation over the acquired land of the KDA and accordingly, notice under Section 26A(4) of the Act, 1973 was affixed over the disputed site. He submits that at no point of time, any map has been sanctioned under Section 14/15 of the Act, 1973. However, in case any objection is filed by the petitioners against the impugned show cause notice, definitely, the Authority would redress grievance of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law. 5. In the facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction in case, any such objection is filed by the petitioners within a week's time from today, the competent authority would proceed strictly, in accordance with law to decide the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within further three weeks time. Till disposal of the objection, the parties shall maintain status quo qua the property in question as on today. Meanwhile, the petitioners are also restrained to create any third party interest over the property in question. October 6, 2025 A.K.Srivastava WRIC No. 34574 of 2025 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad