Allahabad High Court
Thakur Rama Shankar @ Rama Shankar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 17 September, 2025
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:166843-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 31544 of 2025
Thakur Rama Shankar @ Rama Shankar Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Brij Bhushan Upadhyay, Nitin Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, Shiv Prakash Gupta
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Heard Shri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Akhileshwar Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi for Kanpur Development Authority (in short "Authority").
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the impugned notices dated 19.07.2025 and 7.8.2025 issued by Officer Incharge, Enforcement Zone-3, Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur Nagar (respondent no.4) and for a direction to respondents not to take any coercive action pursuant to impugned notices.
3. It is contended that the wife of the petitioner namely Usha Singh purchased a property being House No.127/ 559/ B-12, Block W-1, Saket Nagar, Kanpur Nagar having area 266 sq. yards/ 222.4026 sq. mtrs. from one Smt. Shakuntala Rana wife of Shri P.S. Rana through registered sale deed dated 28.5.2011. The erstwhile owner Smt. Shakuntala Rana had purchased the said property from Manik Karamchari Nagar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. on 14.05.1991. It is contended that after purchasing the plot, Smt. Shakuntala Rana had raised certain construction over it and deposited requisite charges and fees for approval of map and regularisation of construction on 12.09.1991 and 29.07.2005 respectively. Copy of the deposit receipts dated 12.09.1991 and 29.07.2005 are collectively annexed as Annexure No.5 to the writ petition. Later on the said property was sold in favour of Usha Singh (wife of petitioner). Since then the respondents had never raised any objection nor decided the application of Smt. Shakuntala Rana (erstwhile owner) for regularisation of construction.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this backdrop, states that the petitioner is not the rightful owner of the property in question and as such the impugned notices issued against him under Section 26-A (4) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (in short "Act, 1973") is devoid of merit. In support of his submissions, reliance has also been placed on the electricity connection and the house tax receipts. Towards the constructions, the erstwhile owner had already deposited the requisite amount way back on 29.07.2005 but till date the application for regularisation of construction has not been processed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that leave may be accorded to the petitioner to file objection to the impugned notices and to press the application for regularisation of construction in accordance with law. He also states that in case towards regularisation, any amount is quantified in accordance with law, the petitioner is ready to pay the same.
6. Per contra, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for Authority have resisted the relief and submitted that the impugned notices have been issued under Section 26-A (4) of the Act, 1973. Highly disputed facts have been raised in the writ petition, which cannot ordinarily be adjudicated under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The erstwhile owner had purchased the land from the society. Nothing is brought on record to substantiate whether the society had been accorded any leave or permission by the Authority under the Act, 1973. In case there was no division of holding and subsequently third party interest has been created, even on that ground, no such permission can be accorded to the society. For any construction, firstly lay out plan has to be approved by the Authority as per building byelaws. No such effort has been made and only third party interest has been created. The Authority on the basis of title, which is also disputed, had issued notices under Section 26-A (4) of the Act, 1973. He submits that, at this belated stage, merely on the basis of some token amount, which had been deposited by the erstwhile owner on 29.07.2005, no rightful claim can be set up. Even that deposits also speak themselves that the erstwhile owner herself was inclined for regularisation of holding/ construction. Learned counsel for the Authority submits that some time may be accorded so that detailed objection may be filed in the instant matter.
7. Considering the factual situation, we find that certain amount had been deposited by the erstwhile owner towards regularisation of construction. Nothing is brought on record to substantiate whether the Authority had ever passed any order of regularisation or not. Said aspect can only be examined by the Authority at the time of deciding the objection of the petitioner. In the interest of justice, without expressing any opinion on merits of the issue, the writ petition stands disposed of with observation that in case the petitioner files detailed objection to the impugned notices within two weeks, the Vice Chairman of the Authority shall consider the same and pass final order in accordance with law in further two weeks but certainly after giving opportunity to the petitioner.
8. For a period of two months or till the disposal of said objection, which ever is earlier, the parties shall maintain status quo as on today qua the property in dispute and the petitioner is also restrained to create any third party interest or raise any further construction over the disputed property.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) September 17, 2025 SP/