Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60318 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30499 of 2024 Petitioner :- Kanpur Development Authority Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivam Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Ankush Tandon,C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Heard Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondents no.1 & 2 and Sri Ankush Tandon, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.3. 2. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the prayer to quash the order dated 29.04.2024 passed by respondent no.1-Principal Secretary, Urban Planning and Development, Lucknow, U.P. 3. It is argued by Sri Shivam Yadav, counsel for the petitioner that against the order dated 18.09.2018 the reference made by respondent no.3 namely Smt. Suman Tiwari before the State Government as per the provisions contained under Section 41 (3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 was finally disposed of by the respondent no.1 on 24.04.2024 with the following observations :- "पतत्रावलली पर उपलब्ध तथ्ययों एववं ववववेचनत्रा कवे आललोक मम उपत्राध्यक , कत्रानपपुर ववकत्रास पत्राधधकरण कवे आदवेश वदनत्रावंक 18.09.2018 कलो वनरस्त करतवे हहए पवत इस वनदरश कवे सत्राथ पवेवषित वक पपुनरलीकणकतत्रार्ता कवे अनपुरलोध पर ननैसवरर्ताक न्यत्राय कवे दृवष्टिरत समस्त तथ्ययों / अवभिलवेखयों कत्रा परलीकण करतवे हहए भिभौवतक कब्जत्रा पदत्रान वकयवे जत्रानवे कवे सम्बन्ध मम वनयमत्रानपुसत्रार अगवेतर कत्रायर्तावत्राहली करम। बत्राद आवश्यक कत्रायर्तावत्राहहीं पतत्रावलली दत्राधखल-दफ्तर हलो।" 4. It is argued by Sri Shivam counsel for the petitioner that observations made in the order that too provide physical possession to the respondent no.3 is bad in the eyes of law hence same is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand it is argued by Sri Ankush Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 that only direction was given by the respondent no.2 to do the needful as per law to provide physical possession to the respondent no.3. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. From perusal of the record it is clear that only a direction was given by the respondent no.1 vide its order dated 24.04.2024 as quoted above. The aforesaid order is absolutely perfect and valid order directing to do the needful to provide physical possession of the plot in question in favour of the respondent no.3 as per law. 8. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that no irregularity has been committed by the respondent no.1 while passing the aforesaid order. 9. The writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, same is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Pramod Tripathi Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad