Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81147-DB HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ***** (Sl No.27) Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1649 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Sahu And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sant Ram Sharma Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. The petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to take decision regarding sanction of amended building plan and for realization of compounding fee in pursuance of application dated 05.10.2020 within a specified period. 3. It appears that on 15.01.2008 Secretary, Banda Development Authority, Banda, taking cognizance of the compounding plan submitted by the petitioners, issued a notice to them to remove various defects and make certain compliances to enable the Authority to consider the request for compounding of the constructions. One of the condition inter alia was that the petitioners would leave a set-back of nine metres towards the main road. 4. When the writ petition was first heard by this Court on 21.01.2025, we noticed the said condition and required learned counsel for the petitioners to clarify whether the petitioners have fulfilled the conditions stipulated in the aforesaid notice. 5. In compliance of the said order, an affidavit was filed by petitioner no. 1 and it is stated in paragraph nos. 4 and 5. "4. That the petitioner have complied/removed all the objections raised by the respondent no.3 in letter dated 15.01.2018 including 9 meter set back. For kind perusal a copy of amended map of hotel is being annexed herewith and marked as Ax. 1 S.A. 5. That not only aforesaid, the petitioners have also demolished portion of land which was illegal as shown in the map." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the petitioners have already filed an affidavit before the Authority stating that they have complied with the conditions and that non-compoundable part had been demolished. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent Development Authority disputed the aforesaid stand and submitted that although the petitioners had filed an affidavit but the non-compoundable part of the building has not been demolished. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners responded to the said submission by contending that non-compoundable part of the building has been demolished and undertook to file an affidavit of the petitioners on the said aspect. 9. Consequently, the case was adjourned. 10. Today, an affidavit has been filed by petitioner no.1 in which it is admitted that non-compoundable part of the building has yet not been demolished. The relevant averments are as follows: “9. That in aforesaid map, non compoundable area is marked with red ink which is mentioned as proposed to be demolished before/after sanction of map. 10. That the Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 6.5.2025 directed the petitioner to demolish non-Compoundable area and Counsel for the petitioner assured demolition before Hon'ble Court. However the petitioner is unable to demolish non-compoundable area within such a short period since the non-compoundable area is about 100 meter length and based on 10 pillars/beams and without erecting or supporting other beams within compoundable area, it is impossible to demolish the same as mentioned in building plan and need some reasonable time which is at least 3 months as per Engineers. 11. That on the aforesaid circumstances, the Hon'ble Court may please to direct the respondent authorities to sanction the building plan if the petitioners demolish non-compoundable area within reasonable time as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court and the petitioners are ready to give undertaking before this Hon'ble Court, if they have not demolished non-compoundable portion as directed by this Hon'ble Court then respondent authorities may take appropriate action against the petitioners. 12. That the petitioner have complied/removed all the objections raised by the respondent no.3 in letter dated 15.1.2018 including 9 meter set back but unable to demolish non compoundable area marked in red ink however it was inadvertently wrongly stated in first affidavit that it was demolished.” 11. Sri R.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners concedes that the stand taken before this Court on the previous date was not correct. 12. He submits that there was an inadvertent error on his part in making the submissions. He does not press the writ petition any further. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed without any liberty to file fresh petition on same cause of action. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Shubham Arya (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad