Anoop Kumar Seth vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 41391 of 2025

Anoop Kumar Seth

	Versus	..	...Petitioner(s)
State Of U.P. And 5 Others		.....	Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Gautam : Adya Prasad Singh	Tewari, C.S.C.,	Krishna Raj

¶5

Court No. - 29

¶6

HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

¶7

Heard Shri Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Shri K.R. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent - Gorakhnpur Development Authority and Shri A.P. Tiwari, learned cousnel for the private respondent Nos.5 and 6.

¶8

The instant writ petition has been preferred praying inter alia for the following relief:

¶9

"i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 11/12.07.2025 passed by Respondent no.1 (Annexure No. 19 to the writ petition) as well as the impugned letter/order dated 21.08.2024 issued/passed by the Respondent No. 3. (Annexure no. 14 to the writ petition)

¶10

ii) To issue a writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing/commanding the Respondent No. 2 to cancel the Sanction letter dated 19.03.2024 in File No. GKDA/BP/23-24/1635, bearing Permit No. ResiComm Building/05565/GKDA/BP/23-24/1635/30012024 in respect of Plot No. 940M, House no. 145-A situated at Mohalla Basharatpur, Tappa, Kasba Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Sadar, District Gorakhpur granted by concerned authority of Gorakhpur Development Authority (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition), and seal the premises of construction work being carried out on the disputed property."

¶11

The petitioner is the complainant. His objection, moved for cancellation of the map under Sections 14/15 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1973”), was initially rejected by the Vice

¶12

WRIC No. 41391 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

Chairman, Gorakhpur Development Authority. Admittedly, the revision under Section 41(3) of the Act, 1973 was also preferred and came to be rejected. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reliefs sought deserve to be accorded; otherwise, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury.

¶15

Per contra, Shri A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the contesting respondent Nos. 5 and 6, has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the premise that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. Moreover, the petitioner has already invoked the jurisdiction of the competent civil court by filing a suit for cancellation of will deed, sale deed and gift deed. In that suit, the application for temporary injunction was rejected. A miscellaneous appeal also met the same fate. Since the suit proceedings are ongoing, Shri Tiwari submits that the petitioner cannot pursue parallel proceedings under writ jurisdiction, as the rights of the parties are to be crystallized before the competent civil court.

¶16

Considering the factual aspects of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage, as the petitioner’s rights are dependent upon the outcome of the ongoing civil proceedings.

¶17

Confronted with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed at this stage, with liberty to pursue the remedy before the competent civil court in the pending suit.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed , with liberty as prayed.

¶19

November 25, 2025 NLY

¶20

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anoop Kumar Seth v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Kumar Seth v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarab Singh vs Project Director National Highway Authority and Another

Raghvendra Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 6 Others

Smt. Manju Devi and Another vs Union of India and 2 Others

Shiv Babu Dubey vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Asad Ahmad and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajab Akhtar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others