Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73677-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14389 of 2025 Petitioner :- Nisha Maurya And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar,Lok Nath Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Avadhesh Narayan Dubey,C.S.C.,Harsh Vardhan Gupta Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by different orders/notices passed/issued by the respondent-Development Authority under the provisions of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. 2. The first one is a notice dated 10.3.2025 issued under Section 26A(4) of the Act, requiring the petitioners to appear before the Development Authority on 25.3.2025 with documents regarding their title over land measuring 0.023 hectare which is alleged to be open/Government land. The petitioners claim to have submitted a reply to the said notice on 25.3.2025 stating therein that their pukka constructions are in existence over 196 sq. meters of Arazi No. 74, area 0.0171 hectare, Mauja Karanpur, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, Prayagraj. They have also stated that the land over which the constructions are in existence, is freehold land and copy of the sale deed and revenue records were filed along with the reply. The specific case of the petitioners is that without taking any decision, another notice was issued to the petitioners on 16.4.2025 for removing the constructions, failing which the same would be demolished by the Authority. It was followed by another order dated 16.4.2025, stating that the petitioners have failed to produce any evidence regarding their title and therefore they should demolish the constructions within fifteen days. Yet another order was passed on 19.4.2025 in purported exercise of power under Section 28A of the Act, stating that the offending constructions have been sealed on 21.4.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have duly submitted their reply on 25.3.2025, the date fixed vide notice dated 10.3.2025. However, without considering the same, the respondents have proceeded to pass/issue different orders/notices. 4. Sri Avadhesh Narain Dubey, learned counsel appearing for Prayagraj Development Authority, is not in a position to dispute that the reply of the petitioners dated 25.3.2025 to the show cause notice has not been considered while passing the subsequent orders and while sealing the offending constructions. 5. This, in our considered opinion, amounts to breach of the principles of natural justice. The action of the respondent- Development Authority in passing the subsequent orders is a result of total non-application of mind. 6. In view of the above, the subsequent orders/notices are quashed. The Development Authority will consider and decide the objection of the petitioners dated 25.3.2025 in accordance with law. 7. The petition stands disposed of. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Jaideep/- Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad