The Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, comprising Justice Pankaj Bhatia and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai, has stayed further demolition of a property owned by petitioner Kanchan Singh, observing that demolition activities cannot be carried out while an appeal is actively pending before the appellate authority. The court further noted that the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) engaged in selective enforcement by targeting the petitioner’s property while leaving surrounding unauthorized properties untouched, directing key LDA officials to explain this selective action under oath.
Background of the Case
The matter arose after the petitioner, Kanchan Singh, raised constructions over a property purchased through a sale deed. According to the petitioner, no sanction of a map was obtained because the area of the property was less than the minimum prescribed area for which maps are required to be sanctioned.
Subsequently, the respondent authorities issued a demolition notice, which culminated in a demolition order passed against the petitioner on November 30, 2024. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal along with a delay condonation application before the Commissioner, as prescribed by the relevant statute. Although the respondents had entered their appearance and the appeal was actively being heard by the appellate authority, the LDA proceeded to execute demolition actions on the property.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioner, Anuj Kumar Gupta and Vipul Pratap Mishra, argued that the LDA’s execution of demolition proceedings while the statutory appeal was being actively heard before the Commissioner was wholly illegal. They also contended that the authority carried out a selective demolition campaign, specifically targeting the petitioner’s property. To substantiate this point, the petitioner’s counsel presented photographs during the hearing demonstrating that other similar constructions in the immediate vicinity remained completely untouched and unsealed.
Defending the authority’s actions, Sri Ratnesh Chandra, representing the LDA, argued that the property in question had been sealed twice. He contended that despite the sealing of the premises, unauthorized construction activities continued on the site, which ultimately necessitated the demolition action.
Sri Ratnesh Chandra further stated, based on instructions from Mr. Devansh Trivedi, Officer on Special Duty (OSD) of the LDA, who was present at the site during the demolition, that notices had been issued to as many as 70 persons and demolition orders were passed, but no actual demolition had been carried out on those other properties.
The Court’s Analysis
Upon examining the submissions and photographs, the High Court found that the LDA’s actions appeared to be biased and selective. The bench noted:
“Prima facie, the selective action has been taken against the property owned by the petitioner and no such action appears to have taken against any other property in the vicinity.”
The court also expressed strong dissatisfaction with the LDA’s conduct, finding apparent bad faith in its selective execution:
“Prima facie, the mala fide at the instance of the Lucknow Development Authority stands established.”
Addressing the justification presented by the LDA’s counsel regarding the notices issued to other properties, the court dismissed the defense, observing:
“The submissions and satisfaction expressed by Sri Ratnesh Chandra appear to be prima facie only to avoid the real issue that, during the pendency of the appeal, the demolition could not have been carried out, more so as the parties were appearing before the appellate authority.”
Decision of the Court
Determining that the matter required serious consideration, the High Court issued an interim order staying further demolition of the petitioner’s property.
The court directed both the Vice Chairman of the Lucknow Development Authority and the OSD, Mr. Devansh Trivedi, to file personal affidavits within three weeks explaining why selective demolition was executed against only one property while leaving other unapproved constructions in the vicinity untouched.
Furthermore, the bench warned that it would consider initiating statutory action against the OSD on the next scheduled hearing. The court ordered:
“On the next date, this Court shall consider taking action against Sri Devansh Trivedi in terms of the provisions of Section 26-D of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.”
The case has been ordered to be listed for hearing after three weeks.
Case Details:
Case Title: Kanchan Singh Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And 5 Others
Case No.: WRIT-C No. 6683 of 2026
Bench: Justice Pankaj Bhatia and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai
Date: June 24, 2026
