Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52658-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10628 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Baranwal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Divyanshu Nandan Tripathi, Swati Baranwal,Utkarsh Khanna Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.R. Singh Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. The instant petition has been filed for quashing of a communication dated 05.03.2025 sent by the Secretary, Gorakhpur Development Authority to Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur on the subject of removal of encroachment. The communication clarifies that constructions are being made by respondent no. 4 over Arazi No.57 M Mauza Kalepur on basis of approved Map No.GKDA/BP/24-25/1337. The case of the petitioner is that infact the petitioner is the owner of the property and therefore, the Development Authority has wrongly informed the Senior Superintendent of Police that respondent no. 4 is authorized to make constructions. He invites our attention towards a previous communication by the same Authority to Senior Superintendent of Police, wherein taking notice of the fact that a civil suit has been instituted by the petitioner against respondent No. 4, it was provided that till the dispute between the parties is resolved, the construction should be stopped. 2. Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the property infact belongs to the petitioner. It was purchased benami in the name of his wife. She illegally executed a sale deed dated 21.11.2023 in favour of respondent no. 4. He submits that the petitioner has already filed a civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 21.11.2023 executed by the wife of the petitioner in favour of respondent no. 4. In the said suit, he has also filed an application for temporary injunction and on which notice has been issued to the defendants and therefore, respondent no.4 cannot be permitted to raise constructions. 3. Sri K. R. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Development Authority submits that since the petitioner has already instituted a civil suit and therefore the Development Authority would act in accordance with any order passed by the trial court in the said suit. At this stage, the Development Authority cannot stop constructions as the map is duly sanctioned in favour of respondent No.4. 4. Since admittedly, the petitioner has instituted a civil suit against respondent No. 4 and injunction application filed by the petitioner is pending, therefore it is open to the petitioner to obtain appropriate relief from the civil court. The respondent Development Authority cannot be said to have committed any illegality in issuing the impugned communication. 5. The petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to obtain appropriate relief in the pending civil suit and any order passed therein would be complied with by the Development Authority in accordance with law. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 10.4.2025 skv Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad