Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 197559 (ALL)

ABID LUKMAN v. DISTT. MAGISTRATE BAHRAICH AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/11348/2025 · 2025-11-21

Subhash Vidyarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11348 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Case Called out. Nobody is present on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition neither any request for adjournment of the case is made. 2. Heard Shri S.K. Khare, the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. representing the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Shri Rajiv Kumar Tripathi and Shri Nripendra Mishra, the learned counsel representing the respondent No.4. 3. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged two orders- (i) an order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the Prescribed Authority, regulated area/City Magistrate, Bahraich in Case No.1024 of 2025 under Section 9/10 of Regulation of Building Operations Act, whereby a modified construction plan submitted by the respondent No.2 has been sanctioned and the complaint of the petitioner for demolition of unauthorized construction has been rejected and (ii) an order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the Prescribed Authority for rejection of sanctioned plan of respondent No.4 was rejected. 4. On the basis of written instructions provided by the Prescribed Authority, the learned Standing Counsel has informed the Court that although there were some deviation from sanctioned plan, those fall within permissible compounding limits. The respondent No.4 had applied for compounding, paid the requisite compounding fee and a compounding order has already been passed in his favour. Therefore, the violation of building plan by the respondent No.4 stands compounded in accordance with law. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Hom Narayan Awasthi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Abid Lukman .....Petitioner(s) Distt. Magistrate Bahraich And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Regarding other grievance of the petitioner, he has statutory remedy of appeal available and, therefore, this court is not inclined to entertain this petition in spite of availability of remedy of appeal. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of filing an appeal. November 21, 2025 -Amit K- WRIC No. 11348 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench