HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 32679 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Shri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents and Shri K.R. Singh, learned counsel for the Gorakhpur Development Authority (GDA). 2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following relief: "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by respondent no. 5 in Suit No. GRDA/ANI/2025/0001904 (G.D.A. vs. Heera Singh). ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere into the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 Commissioner, Gorakhpur Mandal, Gorakhpur to decide the appeal no. C-202505000001055 (Om Prakash Singh vs. Presiding Officer, G.D.A.). iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pawan Kumar Mishra, Pranav Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., K.R. Singh Om Prakash Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) respondent no. 4 to decide the representation dated 03.06.2025 moved by the petitioner." 3. At the very outset, Shri K.R. Singh, learned counsel for the GDA, has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that proceedings under Sections 27 and 28 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1973") have already commenced, and the order dated 21.04.2025 has been passed by the Presiding Officer, GDA, Gorakhpur, Zone 1(kha). As the said order is appealable under Section 27(2) read with Section 28A(4) of the Act, 1973, and the petitioner has already invoked the appellate forum where the matter is pending consideration, it is submitted that simultaneous proceedings cannot be permitted. 4. Confronted with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that, since the appeal is already pending consideration, a time- bound direction be issued to decide the appeal expeditiously. 5. Considering the factual situation, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition, as the petitioner has already invoked the alternative forum. Needless to say, the appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order, without according any unnecessary adjournment to the parties. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioner. September 24, 2025 NLY WRIC No. 32679 of 2025 2 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad