MAULANA FURKAN ALIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                         WRIT - C No. - 16820 of 2026

Maulana Furkan Ali
                                                                .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                             .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                       :    Rafiuddin Ansari
Counsel for Respondent(s)                       :    C.S.C.

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
                                                                WRIC No. 16820 of 2026
                                    2


     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
                                                                   3


                                    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.




                                                       (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    NLY




Digitally signed by :-
NAND LAL YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad