Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14232 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1195 of 2023 Petitioner :- Narendra Chaudhary Respondent :- Chairman/Appellate Authority,Raebareli Development Authority, Raebareli And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Diwakar Singh Kaushik,Virendra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Dharmendra Kumar Dixit,C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel along with Shri Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner with an approval to raise constructions, had raised constructions on the property owned by the petitioner bearing Gata Nos.99/2 and 100 at Tripula Chauraha, Lucknow- Prayagraj Road, Raebareli. However, on 21.06.2017, an order came to be passed by respondent No.2 sealing the premises in exercise of powers under Section 28-A of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner moved an application, requesting for opening of the seal and also he deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- and a map for compounding. It was stated in the writ petition that the map for compounding is still pending, which came to be rejected vide order dated 24.02.2021. In terms of the said order, the premises was actually sealed on 24.02.2021. The petitioner submitted an application before the Secretary of respondent No.2 for recalling of the order dated 24.02.2021. On 06.05.2021, subsequently, the file of the proceedings was made available. The petitioner also preferred an appeal under Section 28-A(4) of the Act before the Chairman/Appellate Authority, which came to be dismissed on 14.07.2022. The allegations against the petitioner were that he had raised constructions, which were at a distance of less than 60 meters from the center of the road and as the land was proposed to be acquired, the compounding could not be done. 3. During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the respondents had produced a copy of the undertaking given by the petitioner, undertaking to remove the unauthorized constructions himself and subject to the said undertaking, the compounding was allowed. It was also brought to the notice that the petitioner did not remove the offending constructions, as such, the sealing continues. 4. During the hearing, affidavits and counter affidavits were filed by both the side. 5. On one hand, the petitioner submitted that on the road on which the constructions raised by the petitioner are standing, the properties adjacent to the property of the petitioner also suffer from the same vice of there being constructions on a road, which is less than 60 meters from the center of the road. Various antecedents were brought on record through an affidavit, which indicates that some of the premises are also situated within 21.1 meters of the center of the road, however, no such order of sealing has been passed in respect of the said premises. 6. On the basis of the said allegations, an affidavit was called from the respondents. In terms of the said order, the respondents have proceeded to pass sealing order in respect of the other properties also, perhaps on account of pendency of the writ petition herein. The said sealing order is proposed to be executed on 18.03.2025 as is clear from the sealing orders, which have been brought on record. 7. On perusal of the Act powers of sealing are conferred by virtue of Section 28-A, which is reproduced herein-below:- "28-A. Power to seal unauthorised development: - (1). It shall be lawful for the Vice-Chairman or an officer empowered by him in the behalf, as the case may be, at any time before or after making an order for the removal or discontinuance of any development under Section 27 or Section 28 to make any order directing the sealing of such development in a development area in such manner as may be prescribed for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of this Act. (2) Where any development has been scaled, the Vice-Chairman or the officer empowered by him in this behalf, as the case may be, for purpose of removing or discontinuing such development order the seal be removed. (3) No person shall remove such seal except under an order made under Sub-section (2) by the Vice-Chairman, or the officer empowered by him in this behalf. (4) Any person aggrieved by an order made under Sub-section (1) or subsection (2) may appeal to the Chairman against that order within thirty days from the date thereof and the Chairman may after hearing the parties to the appeal, either allow or dismiss the appeal. (5) The decision of the Chairman shall be final." 8. A power of sealing has been conferred on the Vice-Chairman or an Officer empowered to seal the premises at any time before or after making an order for the removal or discontinuance of any development under Section 27 or Section 28 of the Act. Clearly the said powers are in the nature of interim powers to stop the development, pending orders to be passed under Section 27 or under Section 28 of the Act. Admittedly, no order has been passed either under Section 27 or under Section 28 of the Act in respect of the petitioner's property, although, the compounding map has been rejected. It is clear that the power under Section 28-A cannot be in perpetuity and has to be exercised for achieving the goal as prescribed under Sections 27 and 28 of the Act. There being no final order passed, the exercise of sealing the premises since the year 2021 and discontinuance for a period of four years, on the face of it, is not justified. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the compounding application filed by the petitioner has been rejected on preliminary grounds without there being any consideration in respect of the constructions raised by the petitioner. 10. He undertakes to file a fresh compounding application in accordance with law before the Secretary of respondent authorities within a period of one month from today. The respondent authorities shall pass orders on the said compounding application strictly in accordance with law. While doing so, the authorities will bear in mind that all the properties which are situate at a distance from the center of the road up to a particular distance should be treated equally. Any separate order, passed demonstrating the exercise of power in an arbitrary manner, favoring similarly placed persons would be viewed very seriously by this Court. 11. The authorities may pass orders in accordance with law as it deems fit, the approval of the said order shall also be taken from the higher authorities. While deciding the application, the authorities will not be influenced with the observation in the two impugned orders. 12. In the meanwhile, the sealing of the premises is set aside. The petitioner would be permitted to use the building. However, he shall not raise any fresh construction without there being any sanction and subject to the decision on the compounding application in accordance with law. 13. The petition is disposed of in terms of above. Order Date :- 7.3.2025/Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench