Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138989-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27383 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sachin Saxena Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Kumar,Virendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard Shri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents, and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition has been instituted seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Up Ziladhikari, Regulated Area, Mainpuri (respondent no. 2). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bhumidhar and recorded tenure-holder of Plot No. 3241, admeasuring 20 x 50 square feet. The said plot was declared as abadi land by an order dated 25.10.2011 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. After execution of the sale deed in his favour, the petitioner submitted an application before the Prescribed Authority seeking sanction of the building map. Despite reminders, no decision was taken nor any communication was made. Consequently, in view of Section 7(4) of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958, the permission stood deemed to have been granted. Acting upon the said deemed sanction, the petitioner raised construction in 2023 strictly in accordance with the plan and completed the construction. 4. Learned counsel further contends that subsequently, the respondents issued a public notice with respect to adjoining areas stipulating that no construction shall be permitted within 50 meters on either side of the river, treating it as a buffer zone. However, in June and July, 2023, no such order or notification declaring the 50- meter strip as buffer zone was in existence. The impugned order dated 13.06.2025 directing demolition/removal of the petitioner's construction is, therefore, assailed as arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction. It is urged that when Plot No. 3241 was declared as abadi land in 2011, no restriction existed prohibiting construction thereon. The petitioner submits that he has no other residential accommodation, and has invested his life savings for the purchase of the plot and construction of the house. It is further asserted that as the plot measures only 20 x 50 feet, i.e., below 100 square meters, no sanction of map was legally required. 5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State- respondents submits that the petitioner has violated the binding directions issued by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which specifically prohibit construction within 50 meters from the river bank, the said area having been declared as buffer zone. It is contended that pursuant to such directions, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued notice to the petitioner requiring removal of the unauthorised construction. The petitioner neither filed objections to the said notice nor removed the encroachment. Hence, the impugned order has been rightly passed, and no interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 6. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and carefully examined the material on record. The issues raised in the present writ petition pertain to (i) the legality of the construction raised by the petitioner, (ii) the applicability and enforcement of buffer zone restrictions, and (iii) the effect of deemed sanction under the statute. These are essentially factual and technical issues which require adjudication by the competent statutory authority in the first instance. 7. Without entering into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that it would be just and proper to permit the petitioner to ventilate his grievance before the competent authority. Accordingly, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate application/representation before the competent authority within a period of two weeks from today, raising all grounds as are available to him under law. 8. In the event such application/representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to any other affected parties. 9. It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case. All questions of fact and law are left open to be urged before the competent authority. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Anil K. Sharma Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad