Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:128998-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16237 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Dayal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Narayan Rai,Ram Prasad Kanaujiya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Shiv Prakash Gupta Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri P.N. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondent no.1 and Sri Saurabh Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Deepak Mishra, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4-Kanpur Development Authority (in short, 'K.D.A.'). 2. The instant writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia following reliefs: "(i) issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to stopped the illegal Bulldogger action over the Arazi No.756 of the petitioners by the respondents and also issued a direction to the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land in question in light of the order dated 13.11.2024 and 01.04.2025 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court against the Bulldogger action. (ii) issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no.2 and 3 to give the compensation of damaged property of the petitioners and to re-build the construction of the petitioners over the land in question which is situated at Mauza Binganwa, Pargana and District Kanpur Nagar. (iii) Any other suitable writ, order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner." 3. In response to previous order passed by Co-ordinate Bench, learned counsel for K.D.A. has placed detailed instructions which is taken on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that K.D.A. has proceeded to carry out certain demolition under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (in short, 'Act, 1973') in an arbitrary manner without serving notice under section 26A of the Act, 1973. He further submits that no such demolition is to be carried out in the light of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-K.D.A. vehemently opposed the writ petition and submits that the disputed land falls in the territorial jurisdiction of K.D.A., which is constituted under Section 3 of the Act, 1973. He submits that against the original tenure holder namely Ujjawal Singh, ceiling proceeding has been drawn in which Arazi No.756 had already been declared surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short, 'Act, 1976'). He further submits that at no point of time there was any challenge to the ceiling proceeding and the name of K.D.A. had also been mutated in the revenue records. He further submits that nothing is brought on record to show that the petitioners have made sincere efforts for demarcation of the holding or had moved application for carrying out development over the disputed land under section 14/15 of the Act, 1973. He further submits that even the alleged construction/boundary wall is also unsustainable as nothing is brought on record to indicate that the authority had ever approved the layout under the Act, 1973. It is also paramount responsibility of K.D.A. to ensure that no haphazard construction may be carried out contrary to the master/zonal plan. He further submits that moreover, disputed facts cannot be settled in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. We have heard rival submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. 7. During course of argument, the Court has raised a pointed query before the learned counsel for the petitioners to show any plan which is approved by K.D.A. but no satisfactory response has been placed before us. 8. It is apparent from the face of record that no such permission has ever been accorded under section 14/15 of the Act, 1973. It is also apprised that certain land has been declared surplus under the Act, 1976 and name of K.D.A. has also been mutated in the revenue records. In absence of any absolute right, title or claim over the property in question, without any demarcation of the holding, we are not in position to accord any reprieve to the petitioners, moreso, when nothing is brought on record to indicate that K.D.A. has approved any layout plan under section 14/15 of the Act, 1973 for carrying out construction over the disputed site. However, it is always open to the petitioners to invoke the remedy as contemplated in law. 9. With the aforesaid leave, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Manish Himwan (Prashant Kumar,J.) (M.C. Tripathi, J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad