Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:91264 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17642 of 2025 Petitioner :- Baikunath Narayan Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Anand Agarwal,Shreya Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shiv Prakash Gupta Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta alongwith Ms. Akriti Trivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondent no. 1 and Sri A.P. Paul, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 5. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter alia with the prayer to quash the order dated 09.01.2024 passed by respondent no. 3/Vice Chairman, Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur Nagar as well as order dated 12.08.2024 passed by respondent no. 5/Chairman, Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur Nagar. 3. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that an application dated 24.11.2015 was filed by the petitioner seeking sanction of map, since no orders were passed on the same the petitioner preferred a writ petition being Writ C No. 34061 of 2023 before this Court, which was finally disposed of on 26.10.2023. The order dated 26.10.2023 reads as follows:- "1. Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner,learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Anand Prakash Paul, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 2. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that application dated 24.11.2015 filed by the petitioner seeking sanction of map is pending consideration for the last about eight years and the same has not been decided till date for the best reasons know to the authority concerned. She confines her prayer to the effect that the application dated 24.11.2015 may be decided as expeditiously as possible. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to the aforesaid proposition. 4. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3/authority concern to decide the pending application dated 24.11.2015 of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks" 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid, order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3 against the petitioner rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioner for sanction of map and for the purpose of mutation. 5. It is argued by Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner that when the application for sanctioning of map was submitted by the petitioner before the authorities it is informed by them that until and unless the petitioner will submit an application before the Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur for mutation of his name in the revenue records, no orders could be passed on the application submitted by him for sanction of map. 6. Pursuant to the aforesaid an application for the sanction of the map as well as application for mutation of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records were submitted by the petitioner, both the applications were rejected by the respondent no. 3 vide its order dated 09.01.2024. 7. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, a statutory appeal under sub section (5) of Section 15 of the U.P.D.A. Act, 1973 which was registered as Case No. 628 of 2024 was filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur ex officio Chairman, Kanpur Development Authority. The same was also rejected by him vide order dated 12.08.2024 on the ground that the appeal preferred under sub section (5) of section 15 of U.P.D.A. Act is not maintainable. 8. In this view of the matter, it is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no. 3 has misinterpreted the facts with respect to the ownership of the predecessors of the petitioner while passing the impugned order. It is further argued that the respondent authorities also committed a gross illegality as they treated the application for sanction of the building map as an application for mutation of name of the petitioner in the records. This fact is also admitted by Sri Paul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Kanpur Development Authority. 9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. From perusal of records, it is clear that the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the respondent no. 5 is perse illegal as the same has been passed without considering the correct facts of the matter. The refusal to mutate the name of the petitioner in the records of the authority is a step involved in sanctioning the map. The aforesaid aspect of the matter is missing in the order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3. 11. In this view of the matter and also in the interest of justice the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by respondent no. 5 is liable to be set aside and hereby set aside. The respondent no. 5 is directed to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law most expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from today. 12. With the aforesaid observation the present petition stands disposed of. 13. Sri A.P. Paul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 5 shall inform regarding this order to respondent no. 5 within three days. Order Date :- 28.5.2025 Arti Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad