Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 123382 (ALL)

MAHESH PRATAP SINGH AND 3 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. LKO. AND 7 OTHERS

WRIC/1532/2025 · 2025-02-19

Om Prakash Shukla, Rajan Roy

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10732-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1532 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mahesh Pratap Singh And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh Chauhan,Manish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. Sri Nishant Shukla, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party Nos.2 to 6 today in the Court, which is taken on record. Heard. Considering the order proposed to be passed, we dispensed with the necessity of issuing notice to private opposite parties. The petitioners are the complainants, on whose complaint, the proceedings were drawn under Section 27 of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973 and now they have challenged an order passed under Section 27(1) of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973. The order is not one of demolition but for closure of the proceedings on account of the fact that the non-compoundable portion of the building regarding which notice was given for demolition, has been demolished by the owner and for the compoundable part, proceedings for compounding were undertaken and the same has been compounded. The compounding map has been sanctioned. The petitioners say that the order is illegal. They attempted to file an appeal under Section 27(2) of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973 but the clerk in the office of the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow refused to accept it on the ground that only against an order of demolition, an appeal lies under Section 27(2) of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973 and not against an order, such as, the one passed in this case. However, there is nothing in writing in this regard. If the appeal is filed by the petitioners who are said to be complainants, the same shall be registered and thereafter it shall be considered and decided. While doing so, maintainability of the appeal can also be considered and a reasoned order/decision should be passed as per law. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Saurabh Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench