HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 29520 of 2025 (Sl. No. 3) Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Sri Akash Pandey holding brief of Sri O.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri B.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the Prayagraj Development Authority (in short "PDA") and Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the sealing order dated 19.06.2025 passed by respondent no.3 under Section Section 28-A of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (in short "Act, 1973"); for a direction to respondents to open the sealed area of petitioner's plot and for a further direction to respondents to decide the application/ representation of the petitioner dated 26.06.2025 within stipulated period. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents has raised an objection qua the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of alternative efficacious remedy. He submits that against the order impugned, the petitioner is having efficacious remedy to press appeal before the Chairman under Section 28 A-4 of the Act, 1973. He also submits that while passing the order impugned, the Authority has also taken note that without any sanction/ approval of the map, the petitioner is carrying out unabated constructions. He states that under the present facts and circumstances no indulgence is required in the instant matter. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Neha Faridi, Om Prakash Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Harshit Pandey Aakil Kuraishi @ Munna .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Confronted with this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the construction has been raised on a land, which is less than 24 sq mtrs., as such, there is no requirement of seeking any permission for sanction of map. 5. Learned counsel for PDA has disputed the claim set up by the petitioner that the disputed land is around 24 sq. mtrs. He submits that construction is over 120 sq. mtrs. Even in case the land is less than 100 sq. mtr., even in that situation, due permission is required as the same may not be in violation to the Master/ Zonal Plan of the Authority. 6. Considering the factual situation, as the Authority has already passed the sealing order, the factual aspect of the area of land can very well be examined by the Authority. In the interest of justice, it is provided that in case the aforesaid representation of the petitioner is still pending consideration, the same shall be considered and decided by the authority concerned in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order but certainly after giving opportunity to the petitioner. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. September 4, 2025 Kirti WRIC No. 29520 of 2025 2 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad