Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13916-DB HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Sl. No. 45) Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43753 of 2024 Petitioner :- Gita Prachar And Jan Kalyan Praviti Trust Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Ayush Mittal,C.S.C.,Ravi Prakash Pandey,Vineet Sankalp Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Sri S.K. Pandey, leaned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1, Sri Ravi Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Sri Ayush Mittal, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. 2. None is present for respondents no. 4 and 5. 3. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the sanction letter/permit dated 31.7.2024 granted by Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi in favour of respondent no. 5 for construction of a residential building. He has also prayed for a restraint order so that no further constructions are raised in pursuance of the permit/sanction order 4. The case of the petitioner is that Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi has granted permit dated 31.7.2024 to respondent no. 5 for construction of a dwelling unit. According to the petitioner, the said permission pertains to arazi no. 1483 and 1492, House no. D-48/97 and D-48/98, Rampura, Varanasi. The case of the petitioner is that in fact it is actual owner of the said property. Swami Satyanandji is Managing and Head trustee of the petitioner trust. The instant petition has been filed through Swami Bhaskaranand, his general power of attorney. The petitioner in support of his title has placed reliance on a judgement passed in Suit No. 66 of 2007 against the tenant and an order dated 23.05.2024 in an appeal. It is admitted to the petitioner that Original Suit No. 568 of 2011 was instituted by respondent no. 4 claiming himself to be disciple of late Swami Bhagwanand Ji Maharaj for declaration of his title against Swami Satyanand and Mangalanand, who claim to be managing the petitioner trust. The petitioner, thus, claims that the development authority has exceeded its jurisdiction in sanctioning the building plan, as the title of the land is that of the petitioner trust. It is also the case of the petitioner that the development authority had acted in collusion with respondent no. 5 in sanctioning the building plain without notice to the petitioner. 5. Sri Ravi Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the Development Authority in pursuance of our previous order is in receipt of written instructions. According to it, the permit has been granted after ascertaining the compliances laid down under law. It is submitted that for granting permit for construction of a residential building over the site which is earmarked as 'residential' in the Master Plan, no public notice is required and therefore, it was not issued in the instant case. He submits that such notice is required only when any amendment is made in the Master Plan. He further submits that the Authority prima facie satisfied itself about the title of respondent no. 5 and thereafter, granted the permission. It is also urged that the question of title cannot be decided by the Development Authority and therefore, the submission of the petitioner that it has title over the said property and therefore, permit should be cancelled is not sustainable in law. 6. It is submitted that the respondent no. 5 submitted an online application for sanction of building plan. Along with it, he filed khatauni fasli 1423 (non ZA) along with no-objection of Nagar Nigam, Varanasi dated 02.03.2024 and Jal Nigam dated 04.03.2024. The Tehsildar Sadar submitted a report dated 13.10.2023 and after being satisfied prima-facie about the title of respondent no. 5, the plan was sanctioned. Clause 2 of the permission itself mentions that it does not result in conferment of any ownership right. Clause 7 again mentions that approval of map does not give land rights to the applicant. It is, thus, open to the petitioner to establish its right in court of law and as per stipulations in the permit, it would be subject to decision of court of law. 7. We find considerable force in the submission that the Development Authority does not have power to decide question of title while issuing a building permit. It has only to ascertain prima facie title of the applicant and which it had already examined. The permit granted by the Development Authority is subject to decision of court of law in respect of title of the parties and therefore, we find no illegality in the permit/sanction order. 8. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, with the observation that the building permit in question shall be subject to any adjudication by court of law in respect of title of the parties. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Kirti (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad