Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 89300 (ALL)

DEEPAK KUMAR TYAGI v. STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

WRIC/30860/2025 · 2025-09-18

Anish Kumar Gupta, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 30860 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Shri Puneet Bhadauria, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri F.A. Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Tejaswi Misra, learned counsel for Ghaziabad Development Authority (in short "Authority"). 2. The supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the impugned demolition notice dated 12.08.2025 issued by respondent no.4. 4. Learned counsel for the Authority states that it is not in dispute that without any sanctioned map under Section 14/15 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (in short "Act, 1973), the petitioner had raised construction over the plot in question. After getting knowledge of the said construction, initially in the year 2016 notices under Sections 27 & 28 of the Act, 1973 had been issued and premises were also sealed. Later on, a first information report had also been lodged. The petitioner had again tried to raise construction in the year 2021. At the time of carrying out demolition on 20.08.2025, the petitioner had given undertaking to the Authority that he would move appropriate application for sanction/ compounding as per law and accordingly demolition was deferred for one month. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this backdrop, states that some breathing time may be accorded to the petitioner to move appropriate application for sanction of map/ compounding in accordance with law. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Puneet Bhadauria Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Tejasvi Misra Deepak Kumar Tyagi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 6. Considering the factual situation, we do not find any merit in the instant matter, which warrant any interference. However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that in case the petitioner moves appropriate application ventilating his grievances before the authority concerned within ten days, we hope and trust that the Authority shall pass appropriate order strictly in accordance with law in six weeks, thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. September 19, 2025 SP/ WRIC No. 30860 of 2025 2 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad