HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9838 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 respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4, and Sri Nishant Shukla, Advocate, who has filed power on behalf of the Lucknow Development Authority, respondent no.3. 2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:- "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandmus thereby commanding and directing to the respondent authority no. 3 Lucknow Development Authority to cancel the sanctioned letter of the permit/map dated 04.02.2025, issued in favour of private respondent no.5 for construction of multistory building contained as annexure no. 1 to this writ petition, in the interest of justice." 3. In view of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to respondent no.5 is dispensed with. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 5 has encroached upon the land belonging to Shamshan and of Mahadev Temple, causing inconvenience to the public at large, and has got his building plan Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chitresh Chandra Kaushal, Mukesh Kumar Tewari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra Ram Sagar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planning And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) sanctioned for a multi-storey building to be constructed on the basis of misrepresentation and concealment. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Lucknow Development Authority has pointed out Section 15 sub-clause(9), wherein any person who is aggrieved by the permission/sanctioning of building plan can approach the Vice-Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority and if the Vice-Chairman is satisfied, he may cancel such permission/sanction for reasons to be recorded in writing after giving opportunity of hearing to the person concerned. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner has made two complaints, copies of which have been filed by him as annexures to the Writ Petition, but no heed has been paid. 7. Admittedly, such complaints have been made in Jansunwai Diwas and on the I.G.R.S. Portal. No application has been made by the petitioner under Section 15 sub-clause (9) of the Act of 1973. 8. It has also been argued by Shri Nishant Shukla, learned Counsel representing the Lucknow Development Authority, that the I.G.R.S. complaint made by the petitioner has been disposed of by the Additional Secretary. A copy of such letter dated 12.09.2025, by which the L.D.A. has asked for additional information from the petitioner, has been filed as annexure-11 to the Writ Petition, to which the petitioner has not replied till date. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seriously disputes such assertion and says that he has given all material in his possession to the Lucknow Development Authority, but the Lucknow Development Authority is not taking any action. 10. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make an appropriate application within a week from today under Section 15 sub-clause (9) of the Act of 1973, which shall be disposed of by the Vice- Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to respondent no.5 and to the other persons concerned, if need be, within a period of two months thereafter. WRIC No. 9838 of 2025 2 11. Since it has also been argued by the petitioner that encroachment has been made on public utility land, the petitioner can move an appropriate application under Section 26-A of the Act of 1973 before the Authority concerned within two weeks from today. If such application is made, it shall be considered by the Competent Authority and appropriate orders shall be passed after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. October 7, 2025 Rahul WRIC No. 9838 of 2025 3 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAHUL TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench