HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 35783 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Dharmendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Development Authority. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for commanding the respondent-Bareilly Development Authority through the Vice Chariman to proceed against respondent no.6-City Enclave Colony through Developer Muzaffar Rais Miyan residence of Rais Complex, Isaiyo Kee Puliya, Shyamganj, Bareilly with regard to notices under section 27(1) of U.P. Urban Planning Development Act, 1973 dated 30.06.2022 and 10.09.2021 as well as notice dated 28.10.2021 for demolition of illegal construction of colony City Enclave situated Vehati Mode, Badaun Road, Bareilly. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner purchased House No.09 from the developer-respondent no.6 on 07.12.2020 and she is living with her family. The petitioner, after inquiring the developer's plan which had been duly approved by the Bareilly Development Authority under section 14/15 of the U.P. Urban Planning Development Act, 1973, consequently raised construction in accordance with law. Later on, the respondent no.6 carried out certain constructions adjacent to the petitioner's house and he had also broken the boundary wall which also affects the safety and security of the colony and accordingly, a complaint Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jalaj Singh, Rajneesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dharmendra Singh Chauhan Smt Swati Rani .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) was also made and later on, the Authority had proceeded against the developer and the other tenure-holders, who are raising constructions. Accordingly, notice under section 27(1) of the Act, 1973 had been issued. He next submits that even though, it is a subject matter of challenge in the appeal, but there is no stay order in it. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission, has also placed reliance on the information so furnished by the Development Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 03.12.2024 wherein Item No.5 clearly provides that :- "5. िबन्दु सं0-5 के संबंध में अवगत कराना है िक इन्कलेव कालोनी की दीवार तोडकर पीछे की अवैध कालोनी को रास्ता िदये जाने की अनुमित प्रािधकरण द्वारा नहीं दी गयी है।" 5. After substantial arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his relief to the extent that as there is no impediment to comply with the notices dated 30.06.2022 and 10.09.2021 as well as notice dated 28.10.2021 merely on the pendency of an appeal, no such leverage can be given to the Development Authority to not to enforce its own notices. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the relief as has been pressed, we find that in view of the provision contained under section 33 of the U.P. Urban Planning Development Act, 1973, which empowers the Authority to provide amenity or carry out development at the cost of owner in the event of his default and to levy cess in certain cases and in case the boundary wall is being demolished, the same can be constructed and definitely, the cost is to be recovered from the developer. 7. In view of the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Vice Chairman, Bareilly Development Authority to take final decision in the matter in accordance with law in light of the representation moved by the petitioner on 06.01.2025 but certainly after giving opportunity to all the stakeholders. October 28, 2025 Sumit S WRIC No. 35783 of 2025 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad