HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 32003 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Devansh Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents, Shri Tejasvi Misra, learned counsel for respondent – Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) and Shri Atul Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 - M/s Gold Coast Developers Pvt. Ltd. 2. This writ petition is preferred for the following principal reliefs: "(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to take necessary action with regard to sealing of Commercial Plot No. CC-05, Ansal Sushant Aquapolis Crossing Republic, bearing Plot Nos.975 and 976 situated at Village Dündahera (Loni Ghaziabad admeasuring an area of 3000 sq. mtrs. pursuant to the letter dated 18.08.2025 issued by the Assistant In-charge (Enforcement), Zone-5, Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad Respondent No. 4 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition);" 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submissions has placed reliance upon Section 15A of the U.P. Urban Planning and Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devansh Misra, Sanjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Atul Kumar Shahi, C.S.C., Tejasvi Misra, Umesh Kumar Singh Bhupendra Kumar Tyagi And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Development Act, 1973 (in short "the Act, 1973"), which specifically provides that no person shall occupy or permit to be occupied any commercial building or use or permit to be used such building or part thereof as affected building or work until a completion certificate has been issued by the Authority, or the Authority has failed for three months after the receipt of notice of completion to intimate its refusal to grant the said certificate. 4. In the instant matter, there is no doubt that there is a consortium agreement dated 09.03.2008 between the petitioners who are owners of the property in dispute and respondent No.5. The record reflects that in view of the consortium agreement, the petitioners have already approached the Arbitrator and admittedly the inter se dispute between the petitioners and the private party is subsisting. In this backdrop, the precise objection has been raised by Shri Tejasvi Misra, learned counsel for respondent – Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) that the petitioners have occupied the disputed property without having a completion certificate and the GDA, in view of provisions of Section 15A of the Act, 1973, is duty bound to ensure that no such activity is permitted except in accordance with law. 5. Considering the claim set up and the relief as has been prayed for, we are not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition as admittedly the proceedings before the Arbitrator are ongoing and it is not a case wherein third party rights have been created. The dispute is purely inter se between the petitioners and the private respondent. Needless to say, it is always expected that the GDA must ensure strict compliance with the provisions under the Act, 1973. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. October 6, 2025 NLY WRIC No. 32003 of 2025 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad