Allahabad High Court
WRIC/38575/2026 of RAMBABU PATEL AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS on 23 September 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 38575 of 2026 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a final notice was given to the petitioner was dated 31.7.2021. Thereafter, another notice dated 13.8.2021
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 38575 of 2026
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a final notice was given to the petitioner was dated 31.7.2021. Thereafter, another notice dated 13.8.2021 was sent to the petitioner. The final order, thereafter, was passed for demolition on 2.12.2021.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that ever since 2021 till 2026, the Prayagraj Development Authority slept over the matter and, therefore, the petitioner was of the opinion that there was a possibility that they might have waived the notice and the order. He, therefore, submits that now when the order had been passed on 20.8.2026, the petitioner ought to have been given one more opportunity by way of notice to be issued by Prayagraj Development Authority.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for Prayagraj Development Authority Sri Darshan Gupta states that from the record it is evident that petitioner has submitted a reply dated 25.8.2026. From the record, we also find that reply of the petitioner is there on record dated 25.8.2026.
4. Learned Counsel for Prayagraj Development Authority further states that the final order has been passed on 2.12.2021 and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he may file an appeal under Section 27 (2) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
5. Considering the rival submissions, we are of he view that if the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kuldeep Kumar Vishwakarma, Sandeep Kumar Vishwakarma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Darshan Gupta Rambabu Patel And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
petitioner files an appeal within a period of 2 weeks, the delay in filing the appeal be condoned and the appeal be decided within 2 months thereafter.
6. For a period of 3 months, no coercieve action shall be taken against the petitioner.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. September 24, 2026 Irshad WRIC No. 38575 of 2026 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- IRSHAD AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad