The petitioner challenged an order under U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1976. The court declined to examine the challenge due to the existence of an alternative remedy via appeal under Section 28-A(4), dismissing the petition.
The petition is disposed of as the petitioner is relegated to the alternative remedy available under the Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5221-DB
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 535 of 2025
Petitioner :- Angoori Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amish Kumar Srivastava,Surabhi Chandra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharmendra Singh Chauhan
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 05.07.2024 passed by respondent no. 4 under Section 28-A(1) of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1976.
2. Sri D.S. Chauhan, Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has alternative remedy of challenging the said order in appeal, as provided under Section 28-A (4) of the Act.
3. In view of the said undisputed position, we decline to examine the challenge and relegate the petitioner to the alternative remedy available under the Act.
4. The petition stands disposed of accordingly .
(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 9.1.2025 gp
Digitally signed by :- GANESH PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition needs examination given the existence of an alternative remedy under the Act.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Angoori Devi
State Of U.P.
Manoj Kumar Gupta
Anish Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
