Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140327-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19858 of 2025 Petitioner :- Col. Savitri Datta Respondent :- Sandeep Dabas And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Irfan Chaudhary,Javed Husain Khan,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh,Shesh Kumar Srivastava,Siddharth Yadav,Sunil Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. Heard Shri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Irfan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri F.A. Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Shri Shesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and 2 alongwith Shri Sidharth Yadav, Advocate and Shri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 2. The instant writ petition is preferred inter-alia with following reliefs:- "(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to pass the suitable order in pursuance to notice issued by respondent no.3 dated 13.02.2025, 19.02.2025 and 04.03.2025 within a period of one month and further demolish the illegal construction. (II) Issue any other writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case." 3. The petitioner, who is a retd. colonel, has moved a complaint against her neighbour respondent no.1, who is presently a Colonel, and his wife, respondent no.2 with an allegation that they have raised illegal construction in their house being House No.106, Sector 29, Vijyant Enclave, Arun Vihar, Noida due to which there is interruption in the sunlight and fresh air in the house of petitioner, i.e. House no.105, Sector 29, Vijyant Enclave, Arun Vihar, Noida. 4. On perusal of the record, it transpires that in the instant writ petition, claim and counter claim have been set up alleging that both the parties have certain constructions contrary to the U.P. Building Construction and Development Byelaws. 5. This Court vide order dated 18.06.2025 had issued the notice to the respondents. Thereafter the matter was heard at length on 28.07.2025 and this Court has issued following directions:- "5. Taking into account the fact that both the petitioner as well as respondent no.5 belong to the disciplined force, we find that one indulgence has to be extended for settling the matter amicably. 6. Let both the parties appear before the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA (respondent no.3) on 04.08.2025 along with the requisite papers and the respondent authority, after taking final call in the matter, shall apprise this Court on the next date. We further leave it open to the parties to move an appropriate application before the respondent authority regarding their claim that the alleged construction is permissible under the building byelaws, which shall also be considered and decided by respondent no.3. 7. Put up this matter again as fresh on 18.08.2025. " 6. In response to the aforesaid order, learned counsel for Development Authority has placed detailed instructions dated 14.08.2025, which is taken on record. In the said instructions, it is averred that there are certain deviations of construction by both the parties. 7. Shri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Advocate submits that the petitioner has moved an application for compounding. He further apprised to the Court that as the easementary rights of petitioners are affected by the contesting respondents, the petitioners have already instituted a suit, which is pending before the Competent Court. 8. Shri Shesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and 2 also apprised to the Court that the contesting respondents had also submitted the application for compounding before the Development Authority, which is still pending consideration. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the relief as has been prayed for, we find that the Authority has also indicated certain deviation in the construction of both the parties and it is also admitted situation that both the sides have submitted the application for compounding as per the U.P. Building Construction and Development Byelaws, which are also pending consideration. At this stage, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with an observation that the Authority may process the compounding application of both the parties separately and decide the same strictly as per the U.P. Building Construction and Development Byelaws framed under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. It is further observed that in case any such suit proceeding is pending consideration, the same is to be decided independently, without being influenced by the instant order. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 A. Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad