Allahabad High Court
QAZI TAVASSUL HUSAINversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition stands disposed, with the petitioner directed to file an application under Sections 14 and 15 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, and restrained from further development pending its processing.
Summary
Petitioner Qazi Tavassul Husain filed a writ petition seeking mandamus to compel the Uttar Pradesh Development Authority to approve his map, halt demolition of his construction, and issue a reasoned order on his representations. He argued that his small holding does not require permission under the Building Byelaws of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, and that he had already paid the requisite fee. The Authority contended that no application had been filed and that, under Sections 14, 15 and 27(1) of the Act, demolition could proceed until a proper application is processed. The Court directed the petitioner to file an application in compliance with Sections 14 and 15 within a week and restrained him from any further development pending processing. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the Development Authority is obligated to approve the petitioner’s map without a formal application under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
- Whether mandamus can be issued to restrain demolition pending the petitioner’s representation.
- Whether the Authority can proceed with demolition under Section 27(1) of the Act in the absence of a processed application under Sections 14 and 15.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 — s. 14, 15, 27
Subjects
- mandamus
- building byelaws
- map approval
- demolition
- Section 27
- U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act
- administrative law
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 16053 of 2026
Qazi Tavassul Husain
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Pal, Vikrant Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Narendra Pratap Singh
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Umesh Vats, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vikrant
Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Sri Narendra
Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the Gorakhpur Development Authority.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred praying inter alia for the
following relief :-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the
respondents to approve the map of the petitioner.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents
not to demolish the petitioner's construction till the disposal of the petitioner's
representation.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pass a reasoned and
speaking order in accordance with law on the representations dated 31.01.2026 and
28.03.2026 within a stipulated period."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the
petitioner is having very small holding and as per Building Byelaws
prepared under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (for
short, 'the Act, 1973'), no such permission is required. Learned counsel
further submits that the notice dated 02.03.2023 issued by the
Development Authority under Section 27 of the Act, 1973 is per se
WRIC No. 16053 of 2026
2
unsustainable as the petitioner has already submitted the requisite fee
towards sanction of plan on 23.04.2025, a copy of the receipt is also
annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Learned counsel in this
backdrop submits that the Authority is not processing the application of
the petitioner for sanction of map and is inclined to widen the road and in
this backdrop, plan of the petitioner is not being approved and are
deliberately delayed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Development Authority has resisted
the relief and submits that the instant proceeding is totally misconceived
to the extent that no such application along with requisite fee has been
submitted to the Development Authority which is constituted only to
ensure that no such development is carried out in its territorial jurisdiction
except in accordance with law. He further submits that in case, any such
application is preferred, definitely the Authority would process the said
application and till the processing of application under Section 14 and 15
of the Act, 1973, the petitioner may not be permitted to carry out any
development, otherwise, the Authority is at liberty to carry out the
demolition process in lieu of the notice under Section 27(1) of the Act,
1973.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances and the relief as prayed for, we
are of the view that substantial justice would be sub-served in case the
petitioner moves an appropriate application within a week's time strictly
in consonance with the provisions contained under Section 14 and 15 of
the Act, 1973. We expect that the said application shall be processed in
further six weeks' time as per Building Byelaws. Needless to say, till the
finalization of the application under Section 14 and 15 of the Act, 1973,
petitioner is also restrained to carry out any further development on the
spot.
6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
May 6, 2026
Sumit S
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…