Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 104370 (ALL)

MAJHAR ALI v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/35452/2025 · 2025-10-09

Kunal Ravi Singh, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 35452 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioners today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the State-respondents and Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Bareilly Development Authority. 3. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned notice dated 30.09.2025 under section 27(1) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 passed by respondent no.2-Vice Chairman, Bareilly Development Authority, Bareilly. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent-Authority has apprised to the Court the proceeding under section 27 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. While the proceedings were pending consideration, the petitioner continued unabated constructions over the premise/disputed site, which has been sealed under section 28(a) of the Act, 1973. He submits that against the order impugned, petitioner is having efficacious remedy to press an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. Once the efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, there is no reason or occasion to bypass the statutory forum. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Ramanuj Saini Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dharmendra Singh Chauhan Majhar Ali .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) the instant writ petition. However, in case the petitioner moves an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner/Appellate Authority within a period of two weeks from today along with stay application, the same shall be considered and decided within a period of three weeks thereafter. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition stands disposed of. October 10, 2025 Sumit S WRIC No. 35452 of 2025 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad