Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 130128 (ALL)

JAYENDRA PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. HOUSING AND URBAN PLANNING DEPTT. GOVT. OF U.P. LKO. AND 6 OTHERS

WRIC/2903/2025 · 2025-04-09

Om Prakash Shukla, Rajan Roy

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19940-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2903 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jayendra Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalit Kishore Tiwari,Himanshu Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Heard. 2. Considering the order proposed to be passed and as we do not wish to enter into the merits of the allegations made by the petitioner, issuance of notice to opposite party nos.4 to 7 is dispensed with but without prejudice to their rights in the proceedings pending under Section 15(9) of the Act, 1973. 3. The petitioner has submitted an application for cancellation of map sanctioned by the Lucknow Development Authority under Section 15 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (in short 'the Act, 1973') on the ground that map has been sanctioned for raising construction on the land which the petitioner claims to be his but the map has been sanctioned at the behest of opposite party nos.4 to 7 who according to the petitioner are strangers to the said land and there is a dispute pending in civil court in this regard. 4. Sri Nishant Mohan, Advocate who has filed his Vaklatnama on behalf of Lucknow Development Authority today and which is taken on record says that on the application of the petitioner, notices have been issued under Section 15(9) of the Act, 1973 to opposite party nos.6 and 7. However, he has no instructions as to whether such notices has been issued to opposite party nos.4 & 5 and whether it is required to be issued or not. He says that petitioner has also been given notice. The proceedings are underway. 5. In view of the above, let competent authority look into the matter as to whether opposite party nos.4 & 5 are also required to put to notice in the context of the application submitted by the petitioner or not. If they are required then needful shall be done but as per law. The proceedings under Section 15(9) of the Act, 1973 shall be concluded at the earliest say within two months unless there is any legal impediment in which case it shall be mentioned in the ordersheet and petitioner shall be informed by it. Opposite party nos.4 to 7 shall have a right of hearing in the aforesaid proceedings as per law. 6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Shanu/- Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench