HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 19610 of 2013 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shiv Karan Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Naveen Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the Awas Vikas Parishad. 2. The instant writ petition had been preferred challenging the orders dated 11.6.2012 and 25.3.2013. Further it is prayed that the respondents be directed not to demolish or seal the petitioner’s residential House No. 9/4, Jagriti Vihar Yojana No. 6, Meerut City, Meerut. 3. The Division Bench has entertained the writ petition and accorded interim order in favour of the petitioner on 10.4.2013 and the matter is pending since then. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Parishad, which is already on record. 4. Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel submits that while passing the notice dated 19.5.2012 under Section 83 of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1965”) the respondent, on one hand alleges that the constructions has been carried out without any sanctioned plan whereas in the sealing order dated 19.3.2013 which has been passed under Section 28A(1) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1973”) an objection has been raised by the respondents that the construction has been carried out covering the front setback and the side setback and the columns were raised and as such it was objected that the petitioner had carried out the development contrary to the map. 5. Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel contends that the initial notice reflects that the objection had been raised with regard to construction Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi, Shiv Karan, Ayank Mishra, M.D. Singh Shekhar, Yogesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.P. Srivastava, Awadhesh Tiwari, Navaneet Chandra Tripathi Smt. Seema Raghav And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) without any sanction of map contrarily the map was duly approved by the respondents but certain deviations was there and only in the guise of deviation the disputed construction was sealed and interim order was accorded. He submits that even the alleged construction, which is contrary to the initial approved plan the same is also compoundable in case the matter is relegated to the competent authority to revisit the matter they may pass appropriate orders. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the relief and submits that the initial notice was served upon the petitioner wherein categorical objection was raised that he had carried out the construction contrary to the approved plan and the deviation had also been reflected. He fairly submits that as the matter is pending since 2013 in case the Court is inclined to relegate the matter definitely the Authority would revisit the matter and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 7. Considering the factual situation as the matter is subjudice before this Court since 2013 and an interim order is already there, we find it appropriate that an opportunity may be extended to the petitioner. In case some portion of the construction is compoundable as per the building bye- laws framed under the Act, 1965 definitely, the said claim may be considered in accordance with law. 8. Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel undertakes in case it is found that certain construction is contrary to the building byelaws and are not compoundable definitely some time may be accorded by the Authority to remove the said portion. 9. Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside. The matter is relegated to the Competent Authority that if, in case there are certain deviation which are compoundable as per the building byelaws prepared by the Awas Vikas Parishad, the same may also be communicated to the petitioner and an opportunity may also be extended to the petitioner and in response thereof, the petitioner may file an appropriate application for compounding of offending portion. Needless to say, we have not adjudicated the matter and not considered the certain deviation which has been carried out by the petitioner, the said aspect is open to the respondent Authority to consider in accordance with law. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. September 24, 2025 Kirti WRIC No. 19610 of 2013 2 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad