Allahabad High Court
Dinesh Chandra Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 24 September, 2025
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:171994-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 33606 of 2025
Dinesh Chandra Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Apurva Hajela, Ashutosh Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Ravi Prakash Pandey
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Heard Shri Apurva Hajela, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent, Shri Ravi Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for Varanasi Development Authority and Shri Vinay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 and perused the record.
2. The instant writ petition is preferred for quashing the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the Zonal Officer, Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi having letter no. ?? -36/22 (?? 0 )/?? 0 ???? 0 /??? /2025-26 and further prayed commanding to restrain the respondent authority from taking any coercive actions in pursuance of the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the Zonal Officer, Varanasi Development Authority.
3. Shri Apurva Hajela, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that developer- respondent no. 6 entered into an agreement with landlady-respondent no. 5 the land of which situated at Plot No. 118 Arazi No. 40 situated at Village- Bazardiha, Pargana-Dehat Amanant, Ward Nagwa, District- Varanasi. Subsequently the builder has approached the Varanasi Development Authority (hereinafter referred in short as V.D.A.) and the map was sanction on 19.11.2014. Later on the petitioner was brought under the impression that the construction was in accordance with building by-laws framed by the V.D.A. Later on he has purchased the Flat No. 31 (3rd Floor) of Sarai Aurangabad, Laherganj, District- Varanasi. The respondent no. 5, who is a landlady has approached this Court by preferring Writ C No. 2149 of 2025 (Smt. Shashi Kala Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others), wherein she had approached for a direction to the respondent authority to comply with the order dated 10.10.2022 passed by the V.D.A. under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to the short as 'The Act, 1973') in respect of constructions raised over the said land. The Division Bench had disposed of the matter vide order dated 24.03.2025 asking the appellate authority to decide the appeal. He submits that later on the appeal was decided vide an order dated 29.03.2025 and the matter was relegated to the prescribed authority under the Act 1973.
4. At this stage, he is confined the relief in the light of the provision contained under Section 27(1) proviso of the Act, 1973 which provides :-
"Provided that, no such order shall be made unless, the owner or the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity to show cause, why the order should not be made."
5. Petitioner submits the entire proceedings has been conducted behind the back of the petitioner who is a flat owner. A very noble device has been point out between the developer and the landlady wherein they were in the loggerhead for some dispute regarding the sharing of land/constructed area. He further submits that admittedly the property was purchased in the year 2016, since then no notice has ever been served upon to the flat owner. But in the most arbitrary manner in the light of the order passed by the appellate court, the prescribed authority has heard the matter and various notices have been served upon to the developer-respondent no. 6 but inspite of various indulgences for the reason best known to him he had not turned up and submitted any compounding application in view of which the authority had passed an order.
6. The petitioner submits that he is an aggrieved party and respondent no. 6 has already preferred an appeal against the order impugned, no useful purpose would be served if the petitioner is relegated to the appellate forum firstly, as the matter is to be decided by the prescribed authority under Section 27(1) of the Act, 1973. Moreover, it is also pressed that the earlier appeal which was preferred by the landlady- respondent no. 5, the matter was relegated to the prescribed authority wherein she had submitted a map which was duly accorded by the authority on 18.11.2014, so at this stage it cannot be said that she was not aware with the proceeding. Further it cannot be said that she was not a party at the time of construction as such construction took place with full consent of the landlady-respondent no. 5. He submits that the entire building in accordance with the building by-laws. He fairly submits that certain possible deviation are erected at the top floor, which is being reflected as per the impugned order, but the same can also be compoundable under the building by-laws. He submits that in case the authority may revisit in the matter and provide an opportunity to the petitioner, definitely the petitioner would be in better position to press the relief qua himself.
7. Considering the factual situation as placed before us, it is not in dispute that while passing the order impugned the authority V.D.A. has not accorded any opportunity to the flat owners, who were occupying the building since 2016.
8. No doubt the indulgence was accorded by the V.D.A. to the developer which is reflected from the order impugned. We find that in view of the provisions contained under Section 27(1) of the Act, 1973 at this stage, we cannot compel the petitioner to join the appeal which is challenged by the developer before the appellate authority under Section 27(2) of the Act, 1973.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances we find that the order impugned is passed behind the back of the petitioner who is a flat owner and a necessary party and as such the order impugned is set aside qua the petitioner and the matter is relegated to the Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi to proceed in accordance with law but certainly after giving an ample opportunity to the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands partly allowed.
11. We further clarify that the proceeding which is pending consideration before the appellate authority, the instant order would not come in the way of deciding the said appeal independently.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) September 24, 2025 Sharad/-