HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10513 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Respondents and Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Lucknow Development Authority. 2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:- "CERTIORARI, quashing the illegal impugned order dated 31.05.2025 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Lucknow Development Authority as contained in ANNEXURE NO. 1 of the Writ Petition." 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the order was passed by the Prescribed Authority in Case No.339/2019: Lucknow Development Authority Vs. Krishna Manan and others, with respect to Plot No.3/98, Vikrant Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, ignoring the fact that the Compounding Application of the petitioner was allowed by the Lucknow Development Authority on 13.02.2025. 4. Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Lucknow Development Authority, has pointed out from the order that repeatedly dates were fixed by the Prescribed Authority to produce the order of Compounding, but the petitioner failed to produce such order of Compounding, and therefore, the order has been passed. No error can be found in the order as the case before the Prescribed Authority set up by the petitioner was that he had applied for compounding and the proceedings were pending before the Prescribed Authority. 5. We find from a perusal of the annexures to the writ petition that the Compounding Application was allowed in February, 2025. In case the petitioner could not produce the copy of the same in time, before the order Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Avinash Singh Vishen Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra Krishna Manan .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) dated 31.05.2025, at least the Enforcement Cell of the Lucknow Development Authority, which had initiated the proceedings could have brought this fact to the notice of the Prescribed Authority. 6. We dispose of this petition with a direction to the petitioner to move a recall application within a week from today before the Prescribed Authority. If such recall application is moved within a week, the same shall be decided after taking into account the order dated 13.02.2025 and also other relevant material produced by the Enforcement Cell with regard to whether the petitioner has made further construction which is non-compoundable and then the Prescribed Authority shall pass an order in accordance with the law within a further period of two months. 7. For a period of two months or till the Prescribed Authority passes an appropriate order, the demolition proposed in pursuance of the impugned order shall remain in abeyance, subject of course, to the final order passed by the Prescribed Authority. October 30, 2025 Rahul WRIC No. 10513 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAHUL TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench