HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 35003 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri R.B. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for Prayagraj Development Authority (in short "Authority"). 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the notice/ order dated 8.9.2025 passed by respondent no.3 under Section 27 (1) of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (in short "Act, 1973") and for a direction to respondents not to demolish the house of the petitioner being Plot/ House No.699/16, Baghambari Gaddi, Zone 3, Prayagraj. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for Authority has raised an objection qua the maintainability of the writ petition on two fold submissions. He firstly submits that the Act, 1973 is self-contained Act, wherein full fledged mechanism is provided. Admittedly, inspite of notice, the petitioner had not produced any such details to substantiate whether the map was ever sanctioned by the Authority under Section 14/15 of the Act, 1973. Secondly, he submits that against the finalisation of proceeding under Section 27 (1) of the Act, 1973, the petitioner is having efficacious remedy to press appeal before the Division Commissioner. He submits that once efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, there is no reason or occasion to byepass the statutory forum and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Confronted with this, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in case the Court is relegating the matter to the appellate authority in view of the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dinesh Kumar, R.B.Pal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Harsh Vardhan Gupta Ram Bahadur .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) provisions under Section 27 (2) of the Act, 1973, the petitioner's right may be protected, as meanwhile there is apprehension of demolition. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the order dated 30.04.2024 in Writ-C No.14125 of 2024 (Mohd. Hanif v. State of U.P. & Ors.). 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the issue, the writ petition stands disposed of with observation that in case, against the order impugned, the petitioner prefers appeal along with stay application within two weeks, the stay application shall be decided in accordance with law in further two weeks and the appellate authority shall also make an endeavour to decide the appeal expeditiously. 6. For a period of six weeks or till the disposal of stay application, whichever is earlier, parties shall maintain status quo as on today qua the property in dispute and the petitioner is also restrained to carry out any further development on the spot, meanwhile. October 7, 2025 SP/ WRIC No. 35003 of 2025 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad