Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121190-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12891 of 2025 Petitioner :- Balkrishna Agrawal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra Jaiswal,Rajneesh Kumar Srivastava,Smt. Priyanka Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Aditiya Kumar Singh,C.S.C.,Dharmendra Singh Chauhan Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ajit Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, and Shri Aditya Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 and 5 – Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority (MVDA). 2. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the sanction of a building map granted by respondent nos. 4 and 5 – MVDA – in favour of private respondent nos. 6 and 7 under Sections 14 and 15 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1973"). The petitioner challenges the said sanction order and seeks appropriate relief against the same. 3. Shri Aditya Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the MVDA, opposed the petition by submitting that the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 is a self-contained code providing a comprehensive mechanism for redressal of grievances. He submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 15(3) of the Act, 1973 against any sanction or approval granted under Sections 14 and 15. Accordingly, in the presence of an alternative and equally efficacious remedy, the writ petition is not maintainable. 4. It is further submitted that the impugned sanction has been granted after due consideration, and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1973 and applicable building bye-laws. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Vinod Kumar Bhalotia v. State of U.P. & Others, 2000 (1) AWC 564, wherein the Court emphasized the statutory remedy under Section 15 of the Act as the appropriate course for challenging such approvals. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, upon being confronted with the availability of alternative remedy, fairly submitted that he may be permitted to avail the remedy under Section 15(3) of the Act, 1973. 6. Considering the totality of circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has an efficacious and statutory alternative remedy under the Act, 1973, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage. It is clarified that if the petitioner files an appropriate application or appeal under Section 15(3) or Section 15(5) of the Act, 1973, as the case may be, the Competent Authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law and on its own merits, without being influenced by any observation made in this order. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy available under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Anil K. Sharma Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad