Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:127825-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25099 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ateeq Khan And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Harsh Vardhan Gupta Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondent nos.1 and 2 and Sri B.K. Ojha, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking direction upon the respondent authority to remove seizure information pasted on the main gate/entry of Plot no.159 Milzumla at Sadiyapur, Tehsil Sadar Prayagraj and release the aforesaid seized plot/structure in favour of the petitioners. Further prayer has been made for directing respondent nos.2 and 3 to decide representation dated 05.05.2025. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3-Prayagraj Development Authority (in short, P.D.A.') has raised objection qua maintainability of the instant writ petition and submits that initially a proceeding under section 27/28 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (in short, 'the Act') was drawn against the petitioners on 04.08.2021. He submits that the disputed land falls within the territorial jurisdiction of P.D.A., which has been constituted under the Act to ensure that no development will be carried out except in accordance with law. In this backdrop, he submits that till date the petitioners have not applied before the competent authority for sanction of map in view of provisions under section 14/15 of the Act. He further submits that the premises of the petitioners were sealed and later on, it was found that constructions were carried out in the said premises after breaking the seal open and thereafter again, the premises was sealed in accordance with the provisions of Section 28A of the Act. 4. Neither the petitioners have brought on record any document to substantiate their claim nor the respondent authority has ever accorded any permission to raise constructions over the disputed land. Moreover, no such activity is permissible under the Act. 5. Even this Court has raised a pointed query to the learned counsel for the petitioners that in case the disputed site falls within the territorial jurisdiction of P.D.A. then in absence of approved map by the competent authority under what circumstances the construction has been raised after breaking the seal open, but no satisfactory explanation could be furnished. 6. In view of aforesaid factual situation, we decline to exercise the discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Suffice to indicate that even against the order passed under section 27 r.w 28 of the Act, the petitioners have an efficacious remedy to prefer an appeal or a revision. 7. The instant writ petition stands dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Manish Himwan (Prashant Kumar,J.) (M.C. Tripathi, J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad