HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 33272 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Ravi Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5/Varanasi Development Authority. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for a mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 2 to 5 not to permit respondent no. 6 to construct 'Blis Imporio Mall (Mall of Banaras)' situated at village Aidhe, Pargana Shivpur, Tehsil and District Varanasi beside ring road prior to completion of construction over the petitioner's land/settlement plot no./araji no. 89, measuring 22911 sq. ft. presently House No. C32/47, Chandua, Chhittupur, Varanasi after getting sanctioned map from the Development Authority, Varanasi and getting no dues certificates from the concerned department. 3. The petitioners claim to be owner of plot no. 89 measuring 22911 sq. ft (now House No. C32/47, Chandua, Chhittupur, Varanasi. One Mr. Santosh Kumar Rana and his firm M/s Winsome Developers Private Limited (respondent no. 6 herein) entered into a builder's agreement with the petitioners dated 4.4.2011 on the terms that after obtaining duly sanctioned Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pramod Kumar Srivastava, Tarkeshwari Prasad Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ravi Prakash Pandey Pankaj Kumar Verma And 4 Others .....Petitioner(s) The State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) map from the Varanasi Development Authority, he will raise constructions over the aforesaid property of the petitioners. As the respondent no. 6 started construction without getting sanctioned map, therefore, the Varanasi Development Authority (VDA) passed the order dated 6.6.2022 to demolish the illegal construction and also issued notices to the petitioners instead of issuing notice to the respondent no. 6. Against the said notice, the matter travelled upto the Divisional Commissioner, Varanasi, who had passed an order on 12.5.2023 relegating the matter back to the Vice Chairman, VDA, which is still pending for consideration. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that till date the VDA has not taken a final call in the said proceeding, whereas, the respondents in most arbitrary manner had accorded permission to the respondent no. 6 to raise construction in another land situated at Arazi No. 331, Mauja Aidhe, Pargana Shivpur, Varanasi. Hence, this petition. 4. The aforesaid relief is resisted by learned counsel for the VDA on the premise that the proceeding under Section 15 read with 27(1) of the U.P.Urban, Planning and Development Act 1973 (in short 'Act, 1973) had been drawn against the respondent no. 6 with regard to disputed plot i.e. plot no. 89 and the said proceeding is still pending for consideration. Later on, as the respondent no. 6 had proceeded to submit application under Section 14/15 of the Act, 1973 for sanction of map with regard to Arazi No. 331, which had been processed and the construction is going on over the said plot. He submits that the Arazi No. 331 is a different property and the VDA had already accorded permission to raise construction in accordance with law. As such, no interference is required under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 5. We have proceeded to examine the record in question and find that the matter which was relegated by the Divisional Commissioner under Section 27(2) of the Act, 1973 relates to plot no. 89, whereas the VDA has accorded permission to the respondent no. 6 for raising construction over Arazi No. 331 situated at Mauja Aidhe, Pargana Shivpur, Varanasi wherein the petitioners have no stake. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the instant case. However, it is always expected from the Development Authority to decide the proceeding pending for consideration qua the WRIC No. 33272 of 2025 2 disputed property i.e. plot no. 89, expeditiously in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. September 22, 2025 A.K.Srivastava WRIC No. 33272 of 2025 3 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad