Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SARNAM SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The authority must decide the petitioner's objection within six weeks after a hearing, and the writ petition is disposed.

Summary

Sarnam Singh filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued by the Kanpur Development Authority under Section 26Ka(4) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, seeking a direction that his reply to the notice be decided promptly and that no coercive action be taken against him. The respondents argued that the petition was premature because the proceedings under Section 27(1) of the Act had not been finalized and that the petitioner could later approach the State Government under Section 41(3). The Court held that once a notice is issued and a reply filed, the authority must decide the matter after giving a hearing to the petitioner. It directed the authority to finalize the proceedings within six weeks of the certified copy of the order, subject to a hearing, and ordered a status‑quo pending disposal. The writ petition was consequently disposed.

Issues considered

  • Is the writ petition maintainable despite pending proceedings under Section 27(1) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973?
  • Does the authority have a duty to decide the petitioner's objection within a reasonable time and refrain from coercive action?
  • Can the High Court direct the authority to finalize the proceedings under the Act?

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act
  • Section 26Ka
  • preliminary objection
  • maintainability
  • status quo
  • hearing
  • decision within time

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 18954 of 2026

Sarnam Singh
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Rajan Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : Anand Prakash Paul, C.S.C., Vibhu Rai

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.
                                                                                            WRIC No. 18954 of 2026
                                                                    2


                                    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.

                                    .


                                                       (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
                                    May 14, 2026
                                    Pkb/




Digitally signed by :-
PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.