Allahabad High Court
RAVINDRA SINGH PARIHAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court declined to entertain the writ petition on its merits and directed the petitioners to prefer an appeal under Section 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Roadside Land Control Act, 1945.
Summary
The petitioners sought the quashing of a building permission and No Objection Certificate granted to private respondents for land that allegedly lies within a prohibited highway safety buffer zone, and also demanded mandamus directing the District Magistrate to decide a restoration application and other respondents to enforce statutory building lines. The State respondents raised preliminary objections, contending that the writ petition was not maintainable under Article 226, that the appropriate remedy lay under Section 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Roadside Land Control Act, 1945, and that a pending ownership dispute barred the petition. The petitioners clarified they were not challenging the NOC but wanted leave to appeal. The Court, without reaching the merits, advised the petitioners to file an appeal under Section 7 of the Act within a week and indicated that the writ petition would be considered on merits thereafter. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of pending any such appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution given the factual disputes and pending ownership suit.
- Whether relief sought can be obtained under Section 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Roadside Land Control Act, 1945.
- Whether the court can issue mandamus to enforce building lines and public safety margins under the U.P. Roadside Land Control Rules, 1964.
- Whether the existence of an injunction and pending civil suit bars the writ jurisdiction.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Roadside Land Control Rules, 1964 — s. Rule 7
- Uttar Pradesh Roadside Land Control Act, 1945 — s. 7
Subjects
- highway safety buffer zone
- building permission
- No Objection Certificate
- mandamus
- writ jurisdiction
- Article 226
- Uttar Pradesh Roadside Land Control Act
- land ownership dispute
- injunction
- restoration application
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 35963 of 2026
Ravindra Singh Parihar And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Fakhruzzaman, Falaq Wakeel
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Fakhruzzaman, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri
Suresh Singh, learned A.C.S.C. for the State respondents.
2. In view of the order proposed to be passed today, no notice need to be
issued to respondent no. 5.
3. The instant writ petition has been preferred inter alia for the following
relief:
"I. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling
quashing/cancelling for the records and the conditional building permission and No
Objection Certificate (NOC) granted on 12.12.2025 by Respondent No. 2 to the
predecessor-in-interest of Private Respondent Nos. 5 over the land plots of Arazi No.
4073 and Arazi No. 4074 situated at Gram Talbehat Bahar, Tehsil Talbehat, District
Lalitpur, as the same sits within the prohibited highway safety buffer zone and violates
the explicit restrictive covenants of their parent title deed.
II. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding
Respondent No. 2 (The District Magistrate /Collector, Lalitpur) to immediately
consider, review, and decide the pending Restoration Application dated 3.07.2026
with stay application on 15.07.2026 moved by the Petitioners seeking the absolute
revocation of the building permits, within a strict, expedited timeline to be fixed by
this Hon'ble Court.
III. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent
Nos. 3 and 4 to strictly enforce the statutory building lines and public safety margins
under Rule 7 of the U.P. Roadside Land Control Rules, 1964, and immediately halt all
unauthorized commercial construction activities, pillar installations, or structural
configurations being carried out by Private Respondent Nos. 5 over the unpartitioned
WRIC No. 35963 of 2026
2
joint land holdings."
4. At the outset, Sri Suresh Singh, learned A.C.S.C., has raised preliminary
objections regarding the maintainability of the instant proceeding by
submitting that highly disputed facts are being pressed in the writ
jurisdiction, which cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Secondly, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the NOC
accorded in favour of the private respondent under the Uttar Pradesh
Roadside Land Control Act, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1945"),
an efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners under Section 7 of the
Act, 1945 itself. Thirdly, a serious dispute exists qua the ownership of the
land in question, on account of which the petitioners have already instituted
an original suit for injunction wherein, as per the claim set up by the
petitioners, an injunction has also been granted. He submits that even in case
the injunction is flouted, the petitioners can press an application under Order
XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC and, as such, the writ petition is not
maintainable.
5. Confronted with this situation, Sri Fakhruzzaman, learned counsel for the
petitioners, fairly submits that the petitioners are not inclined to challenge
the NOC as accorded by respondent no. 2 in favour of private respondent,
but leave may be granted to file an appeal before the appropriate forum in
accordance with law.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, we are
not inclined to advert the matter on its merits. We leave it open to the
petitioners, in case they are so advised, to prefer an appeal before the State
Government under Section 7 of the Act, 1945. In case any such appeal is
preferred within one week, we expect that the same shall be considered to be
well within time and decided on merits expeditiously, after giving ample
opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders.
7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
September 16, 2026
M.S. Ansari
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD SAQIB ANSARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…