HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 16820 of 2026 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Rafiuddin Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. This writ petition is preferred for the following reliefs: "(A). Issue a writ, order or direction in the certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 09.04.2026 passed by respondent No.2 in Case No.234/2025-2026 under section 10 of U.P. (Regulations of Building Operations) Act 1958) (State Versus Maulana Furkan) regarding Gata No.3262,3276 situated at Village Qasba Bijnor, Infront of Paris Garden Chandpur Road, Bijnor. (As contained in Annexure No.4 to the writ petition). (B). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents staying the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 09.04.2026 passed by respondent No.2 in Case No.234/2025-2026 under section 10 of U.P. (Regulations of Building Operations) Act 1958) (State Versus Maulana Furkan) regarding Gata No.3262,3276 situated at Village Qasba Bijnor, Infront of Paris Garden Chandpur Road, Bijnor. (C). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rafiuddin Ansari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Maulana Furkan Ali .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) commanding the respondents and his officials directing them not to demolish the residential house of the petitioner situated over land Gata No.3262,3276 of Village Qasba Bijnor, Infront of Paris Garden Chandpur Road, Bijnor. (D). Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the fact and circumstances of the case. (E). Award the cost of this writ petition in favour of the petitioner." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a notice dated 24.03.2026 was initially issued under Section 10 of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1958”), alleging unauthorized construction over the land in question. He submits that, pursuant thereto, the petitioner appeared before the competent authority and filed a detailed reply/application under the provisions of the Act, 1958, specifically requesting that the existing construction be considered for compounding in accordance with law. It is further submitted that despite the aforesaid request and without adverting to the objections/reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondent- authority proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 09.04.2026 in an arbitrary manner, thereby directing demolition of the construction in question. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order suffers from non-consideration of relevant material and violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Per contra, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents, opposed the writ petition and submitted that the Act, 1958 is a complete code in itself and provides an efficacious statutory remedy to the petitioner by way of revision under Section 15A of the Act, 1958 before the State Government. He submits that the revisional authority is fully empowered to examine the legality, validity and propriety of the order passed by the Controlling Authority and may also consider all issues sought to be raised in the present writ petition, including the grievance relating to compounding of the construction. He further submits that once a statutory remedy is available under the Act, 1958, the petitioner ought not to bypass the same by WRIC No. 16820 of 2026 2 directly invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the impugned order has been passed under the provisions of the Act, 1958, against which a statutory remedy of revision under Section 15A of the Act, 1958 is available to the petitioner. 6. In view of the aforesaid, and without entering into the merits of the controversy, the instant writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the aforesaid statutory remedy. It is provided that in case the petitioner files a revision along with an application for interim relief before the competent revisional authority within a period of two weeks from today, the said interim application shall be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks thereafter, after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. It is further observed that till the disposal of the interim application, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the property in dispute as existing today. Thereafter, the revision itself shall also be decided expeditiously strictly in accordance with law. May 7, 2026 NLY WRIC No. 16820 of 2026 3 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad