Disposed¶21

Ravi Shankar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2026WRIC/1229/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act 1973 — Section 28 notice/order dated 22.09.2025 — maintainability of writ petition — Sections 14 and 15 permission for construction — Section 27(2) statutory appeal — alternative remedy objection — Kanpur Development Authority — premises 13/83, Parmat Ghat, Kanpur — sealed premises — peaceful possession — adjournment at counsel's request — listed fresh on 03.02.2026 — no merits decided, no interim relief — Writ - C No. 1229 of 2026, Allahabad High Court.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition was adjourned at the request of the petitioner's counsel and directed to be put up again as fresh on 03.02.2026. No interim relief was recorded. ¶21

Ravi Shankar Tiwari vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 1229 of 2026

Ravi Shankar Tiwari

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Suresh Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Shiv Prakash Gupta

¶9

Court No. - 21

¶10

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

¶11

Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel representing Kanpur Development Authority - respondent nos.2 to 4.

¶12

The instant writ petition has been preferred praying inter alia for following reliefs :-

¶13

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice/order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3 under Section 28 of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning And Development Act, 1973 against the Petitioner (Annexure No. 1);

¶14

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to disturb in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the premises under dispute i.e. premises 13/83, Parmat Ghat, Kanpur and to open the seal of the same;"

¶15

Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel representing Kanpur Development Authority - respondent nos.2 to 4 has raised an objection qua the maintainability of the instant writ petition on two fold submissions. Firstly, nothing is brought on record to indicate that due permission has ever been accorded to the petitioner under section 14 read with Section 15

¶16

WRIC No. 1229 of 2026

¶17

¶18

of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning And Development Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Act, 1973) qua the construction over the site. Secondly, order impugned is also amenable under the appeal under section 27(2) of the Act, 1973.

¶19