HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 9080 of 2026 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Tejas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Divyanshu Nandan Tripathi, learned counsel for the contesting respondent, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Sri Vineet Sankalp, learned counsel representing the Nagar Nigam, Varanasi and Sri Ravi Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for Varanasi Development Authority. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner today is taken on record. 3. With regard to a neighbouring plot, when an application for sanctioning of map was refused on the basis of the fact that the road on which the neighbouring plot is situate, had enroachments, then certain marks were put outside the petitioner's adjacent plot as well. Anticipating that the marks were being put for the purpose of demolition, the petitioner approached this Court by means of the instant writ petition and this Court vide order dated 12.03.2026 had directed in paragraph no. 19 of that order that no coercive action shall be taken against the constructed boundary wall of the petitioner's campus by the Municipal Corporation as well as the State Authority without leave of the Court. This being the position, the petitioner's construction may now be saved. 4. We have recently heard the writ petition filed by the owner of the neighbouring plot being Writ -C No. 32297 of 2025 and we have passed Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sr. Advocate, Tejas Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Divyanshu Nandan Tripathi, Utkarsh Khanna, Vineet Sankalp Virat Paradise Private Limited .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 8 Others .....Respondent(s) the following order :- "1. Heard Sri Divyanshu Nandan Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Sri Vineet Sankalp, learned counsel representing the Nagar Nigam, Varanasi and Sri Ravi Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for Varanasi Development Authority. 2. The instructions filed by learned counsel for the Varanasi Development Authority are taken on record. 3. Essentially, we find that the petitioner was aggrieved by the remarks of respondent no. 2 which were made on 07.08.2025 with regard to there being encroachment over the road situated outside the plot of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was not within his domain to remove the encroachment over the land which belongs to Public Works Department. 5. However, today when the case was taken up, learned counsel representing Varanasi Development Authority has produced before us an order of the Authority dated 28.04.2026 whereby the sanction of map applied by the petitioner had been refused. Learned counsel for the Development Authority states that the petitioner has every right to file an appeal under Section 15(5) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. 6. Under such circumstances, without going into the merit of the case, we direct that the petitioner may challenge the order passed by the Varanasi Development Authority by filing an appeal under Section 15(5) of the Act, 1973 ventilating his grievances and if any appeal is filed within a period of 15 days from today, then without going into the question of limitation, the same shall be decided within a period of two months strictly in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of." WRIC No. 9080 of 2026 2 5. As the petitioner was aggrieved by the putting of marks outside his plot by the Public Works Department, he filed his objections before the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department and stated that they, in any manner, have not encroached upon the land in question. In pursuance of the said objection, there is a report of Public Works Department dated 26.02.2026 stating specifically that there is no encroachment upon the road. 6. As we have relegated the petitioner in Writ C No. 32297 of 2026 to avail the alternate remedy of appeal and as the present action of putting red mark was due to the objection put in the yet to be sanctioned map of the petitioner in the other writ petition, therefore, further action, if any, against the petitioner can only be carried out if there is a specific direction overturning the report and thereafter following the due process of law i.e. giving notice and providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition along with all the pending applications stand disposed of. September 29, 2026 Sumit S WRIC No. 9080 of 2026 3 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad