HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 30201 of 2025 Court No. - 29 (Sl.No.22) HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dharmendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for Rampur Development Authority and Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred inter alia with the following prayer: "i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned notice dated 08.08.2025 passed by respondent no.2. ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to not seize or demolish the shop of the petitioner during the pendency of the present writ petition, otherwise petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased the land being Gata No. 22/2 by registered sale deed on 03.09.1996 prior to the inception of Rampur Development Authority, which has been constituted under The U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 on 15.04.2005. After purchase of the said land, the petitioner has raised construction of four shops over the said land. Thereafter, the constructed shops were rented to the tenants with rent agreement. It is further submitted that the respondents - authority is Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Subhash Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dharmendra Singh Chauhan Smt. Naazama Begam .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) adamant to demolish the shops of the petitioner without any fault on the part of the petitioner and has issued the impugned notice dated 08.08.2025. The action of the Development Authority is without any jurisdiction as the construction of the shop over land of the petitioner is 29 years old much prior to the establishment of Authority. Therefore, the action of the Development Authority is totally arbitrary and erroneous. Further the Development Authority is adamant to demolish the construction over the land of the petitioner without giving any opportunity of hearing. 4. Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel has passed on to the Court the detailed instructions received from the District Magistrate, Rampur, which is taken on record. On the basis of instructions, he submits that the land in question is a government land. A first information report has already been registered against the persons who have encroached upon the State land. Further an enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Department, where it was found that the allegations were found to be correct as per the revenue records. He submits that the disputed facts cannot be decided in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has further apprised the Court the impugned notice has been issued to the petitioner by the Development Authority under the provisions of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 seeking her explanation. 5. Sri D.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the Development Authority also raised an objection against the maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that petitioner's right or title over the property in question is disputed. He also submits that the Development Authority has issued notice on 08.08.2025 under Section 26-A(4) read with Section 27(1) of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 seeking explanation of the petitioner. He further submits that the writ petition is premature and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that as the issue requires ascertainment of certain facts the notice has already been issued by the Rampur Development Authority and the same has already been replied on 25.08.2025 by the petitioner, no WRIC No. 30201 of 2025 2 indulgence is required by this Court at this Stage, however we dispose of the writ petition by providing that the Rampur Development Authority shall proceed to decide the reply/objection of the petitioner in accordance with law, but certainly after taking necessary comments from the district administration qua the status of land in question. 7. Until the same is decided, the respondents are restrained to take any coercive action against the petitioner. September 10, 2025 Ashish Pd. WRIC No. 30201 of 2025 3 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad