Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142862-DB HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Sl. No. 29) Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27902 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rahul Jain Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Mohan Garg,Prabhankar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Prakash Paul,C.S.C.,Pradeep Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent-Kanpur Development Authority. 2. The instant writ petition is preferred for a direction commanding the respondents no. 2, 3 , 4 and 5 to stop the construction work forthwith being carried out by respondent no. 6 illegally and unauthorizedly on the property in question bearing no. 32/90, Maniram Bagia, Kanpur with a further direction to the respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 to proceed with demolition of the illegal and unauthorized construction on the property in question under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. 3. As we propose to pass the order, no notice is required to be issued to respondent no. 6. 4. The petitioner who is the complainant has invoked the writ jurisdiction commanding the Kanpur Devleopment Authority to proceed forthwith for demolition of illegal and unauthorised construction being carried out by respondent no. 6 on a property bearing no. 32/90, Maniram Bagia, Kanpur. Learned counsel for the petition states that respondent no. 6 is carrying out the construction without any sanction of plan under Section 14/15 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (in short 'the Act, 1973). He submits that his unabated construction is being carried out even though the Kanpur Development Authority had issued the notice under Section 27 of the Act, 1973 but till date the construction has not been stopped. Such situation impelled the petitioner to invoked the writ jurisdiction. 5. Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Kanpur Development Authority raised an objection qua the maintainability of writ petition on two fold submission. Firstly, the Kanpur Development Authority had already proceeded against the private respondent under the Act; secondly, the inter se dispute between petitioner and contesting respondents in suit proceedings for an injunction is also pending consideration wherein the injunction is operating in favour of petitioner. As it is also informed the injunction is for an area which is earmarked for ingress and egress (common passage). 6. Considering the factual situation, at this stage we are not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition as the Authority has already proceeded in the instant matter under the Act, 1973. However, we observe the proceedings must be finalized expeditiously but certainly after giving an opportunity to all the stakeholders. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Kirti (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (M.C. Tripathi, J.) Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad