HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 18954 of 2026 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajan Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned A.C.S.C. for the State respondents and Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the Kanpur Development Authority. 2. The instant writ petition is preferred challenging the impugned notice dated 03.10.2025 issued by the respondent no. 3 i.e. Officer Incharge, (Parvartan-1) Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur under Section 26Ka(4) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (in short “Act, 1973”) and also prayed for a direction commanding the respondent no. 3 to decide the reply/objection of the petitioner well within time and till disposal of the said objection no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. 3. At the outset, Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the Kanpur Development Authority has raised a preliminary objection qua maintainability of the instant writ petition on the premise that the proceedings are yet to be finalized under Section 27(1) of the Act, 1973 and the petitioner without finalization of the proceeding, just as a pressure tactics, has approached this Court under the writ jurisdiction. He submits that even after finalization of the proceedings under Section 27(1) of the Act, 1973, the petitioner will have the efficacious remedy to press the application before the State Government under Section 41(3) of the Act, 1973. Therefore, the writ petition being premature is liable to be dismissed. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajan Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anand Prakash Paul, C.S.C., Vibhu Rai Sarnam Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Considering the facts and circumstances and the objection so raised by the learned Standing Counsel, we find that once the notice has been issued and in response thereto the objection/reply has been submitted by the petitioner, the respondent authority must decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law but certainly after giving ample opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders. 4. Considering the factual situation and the relief as prayed for, without adverting to the merits of the case, we find that substantial justice would be sub-served with the direction to the respondent authority to finalize the proceedings in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order but certainly after giving ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. 6. Till the disposal of the proceedings, all the parties shall maintain status quo on the spot as on today. . May 14, 2026 Pkb/ WRIC No. 18954 of 2026 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad