Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132965-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22425 of 2025 Petitioner :- Aafaq Ali And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Archana Singh,Shreeprakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharmendra Singh Chauhan Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri D.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the Rampur Development Authority (in short "RDA"). 2. The instant writ petition is preferred challenging the validity of the impugned notice dated 10.6.2025 issued by RDA under Section 26 (A) (4) and 27 (1) of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (in short "Act, 1973"). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the disputed property had been purchased by the petitioners through registered sale deed on 3.7.2017. The erstwhile owner had moved an application to RDA for sanction of map, which was duly sanctioned by Secretary, RDA on 14.11.2008. He submits that once the map of the property in question was approved by RDA under Section 14/15 of the Act, 1973, and the said property was later on purchased by the petitioner on 3.7.2017, then the issuance of impugned notice, on the premise that the petitioners had raised construction without any sanctioned map, is not justified. He submits that the said notice is issued in cyclostyle manner and that too without verifying the factual aspect of the matter over the disputed plot that the Authority itself had accorded due permission way back on 14.11.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners further apprises to the Court that all the developments had been carried out strictly as per the map approved by Secretary, RDA and even in case there was certain deviation of the sanctioned map, the Authority had to issue notice in this regard but no such notice has ever been issued to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for RDA fairly states that in case map was already approved by RDA on 14.11.2008, definitely the said aspect would be considered by the competent authority. 5. Considering the factual situation, we find that once the plan was duly sanctioned and approved by the Secretary, RDA on 14.11.2008, the issuance of impugned notice in a cyclostyle manner, without considering the provisions of Section 26 (A) and 27 (1) of the Act, 1973 and alleging that without any sanctioned plan the petitioners are carrying out development, is not justified and liable to be set aside. The impugned notice is accordingly set aside. The matter is relegated to RDA to proceed strictly in accordance with law. 6. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Ranjeet Sahu Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad