HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 36117 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajneesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.P. Paul, learned counsel for Kanpur Development Authority, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned A.C.S.C. for the State-respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred questioning the validity of the impugned order dated 19.11.2018 passed by respondent no.3/Secretary, Kanpur Development Authority, which was under Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Planning Development Act, 1973 wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner is using the property contrary to the approved plan. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was running a very small shop, which was sealed by the respondent-Authority on the complaint made by respondent no.5, and the remaining portion of the property is being utilized by the petitioner for dwelling purpose. He has no other residence in the city. He submits, later on, as per their own wisdom, the respondent-Authority had opened the seal of the shop in question without any order in writing. Now, on the complaint made by respondent no.5, again the respondent-Authority has sealed the premises of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that now the State Government has already passed the detailed guideline wherein, the said equities is also permissible under the Act, 1973. He submits so far as the small portion is concerned, which is used as a shop in the premises, the petitioner has already moved an application for compounding. He submits that the matter be relegated to the authority to decide the representation/compounding application of the petitioner. In rejoinder affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits admittedly, the State Government just to facilitate the compounding, has passed the detailed guideline wherein with the same restriction, the commercial activities is also permissible. He submits that leave may be accorded to the petitioner to move Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajneesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anand Prakash Paul, C.S.C. Om Prakash Pandey .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) a detail representation for compounding even though he has filed earlier compounding application or leave may be accorded to press relief in the light of the recent government order in accordance with law. 5. Sri A.P. Paul, learned counsel for Kanpur Development Authority vehemently opposed the writ petition on two fold submissions. Firstly, the order has been passed under Section 16 of the Act, 1973. It is admitted position that the petitioner is using the property contrary to the lease, wherein the lease was accorded for residential purpose. He submits that on various occasions, petitioner had broken the seal and he has moved an application for compounding very late. He submits that order impugned is fully justified and nothing is brought on record to indicate the petitioner is in using the property in consonance with a lease. 6. Considering the factual situation, we find that the petitioner has assailed the validity of the sealing order dated 19.11.2018. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the petitioner is using the said construction as dwelling house also and only a small portion of the construction is utilized for commercial activities. We further observe that in case, some portion of the construction is being utilized for the commercial activity then the sealing of the entire complex/dwelling unit cannot be justified. If there is some contravention of the lease agreement between the parties then the development authority would be justified in sealing the portion, which is in contravention of the lease agreement and not the entire complex as has been done by means of order dated 19.11.2018. Since, the entire complex has been sealed, therefore, the impugned order dated 19.11.2018 is clearly unsustainable as being arbitrary and is, therefore, set aside. Furthermore, as the petitioner has already filed an application for compounding in light of the new Government Guidelines, therefore, we further direct that in case, the petitioner moves a detailed representation before the Authority within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered by the Secretary, Kanpur Development Authority, in accordance with law, but certainly after giving opportunity to the petitioner within a further period of six weeks. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition is partly allowed. October 17, 2025 Priya WRIC No. 36117 of 2025 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad