Allahabad High Court
ANAND KUMAR AGARWALversusSTATE OF UP AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the petitioner may file an appeal under Section 15(5) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and disposed of the writ petition.
Summary
Anand Kumar Agarwal filed a writ petition challenging remarks made by a respondent regarding alleged encroachment on a road adjacent to his plot, which he claimed was not his responsibility as the land belonged to the Public Works Department. The Varanasi Development Authority produced an order dated 28‑04‑2026 refusing sanction of a map applied for by the petitioner. The petitioner was advised that he could appeal this order under Section 15(5) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The High Court directed the petitioner to file such an appeal within 15 days and, if filed, to decide it within two months, without addressing the merits of the encroachment issue. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to file an appeal under Section 15(5) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 against the order of the Varanasi Development Authority.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the pending appeal provision.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ petition
- encroachment
- urban planning
- appeal
- Section 15(5)
- Varanasi Development Authority
- Public Works Department
- jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 32297 of 2025
Anand Kumar Agarwal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Divyanshu Nandan Tripathi, Siddharth
Niranjan, Utkarsh Khanna
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ravi Prakash Pandey, Vineet
Sankalp
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Divyanshu Nandan Tripathi, learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Sri Vineet
Sankalp, learned counsel representing the Nagar Nigam, Varanasi and Sri
Ravi Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for Varanasi Development
Authority.
2. The instructions filed by learned counsel for the Varanasi Development
Authority are taken on record.
3. Essentially, we find that the petitioner was aggrieved by the remarks of
respondent no. 2 which were made on 07.08.2025 with regard to there
being encroachment over the road situated outside the plot of the
petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was not within his
domain to remove the encroachment over the land which belongs to
Public Works Department.
5. However, today when the case was taken up, learned counsel
representing Varanasi Development Authority has produced before us an
order of the Authority dated 28.04.2026 whereby the sanction of map
applied by the petitioner had been refused. Learned counsel for the
Development Authority states that the petitioner has every right to file an
appeal under Section 15(5) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development
WRIC No. 32297 of 2025
2
Act, 1973.
6. Under such circumstances, without going into the merit of the case, we
direct that the petitioner may challenge the order passed by the Varanasi
Development Authority by filing an appeal under Section 15(5) of the
Act, 1973 ventilating his grievances and if any appeal is filed within a
period of 15 days from today, then without going into the question of
limitation, the same shall be decided within a period of two months
strictly in accordance with law.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
September 29, 2026
Sumit S
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…