Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard Sri Pradeep Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4, Sri Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and Sri Mohd. Wajid Irfan, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.
By this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to demolish the illegal construction raised by the respondent no.5 over Gata No. 5304, situated at Janaura, Pargana Haveli Avadh, District Faizabad.
On 22.4.2019, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.3, wherein it has been stated that an order for demolition was passed against the respondent no.5 on 4.1.2018 passed by the Vice-Chairman, Ayodhya-Faizabad Development Authority under Section 27 (1) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Authority, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "1973 Act"), which was challenged by the respondent no.5 by filing writ petition no. 3966 of 2018 (M/B) : Mohammad Tufail Vs. State of U.P. and others, inter alia on the grounds that though he had challenged the order of demolition by filing an appeal under Section 27 (2) of the 1973 Act along with an application for interim relief before the Chairman of the Development Authority i.e. the Commissioner of the Division on 9.1.2018 but no order has been passed and there is apprehension that the Development Authority may demolish the constructions. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 9.2.2018, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad to pass appropriate orders on the pending stay application within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order and thereafter make an endeavour to decide the appeal on merits within a period of four months strictly in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. The order dated 9.1.2018 reads as under :-
"Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Anupama Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Uttam Kumar Verma, learned Counsel representing respondent No.3/Ayodhya-Faizabad Development Authority.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 4.1.2018 passed by the Vice-Chairman of the aforesaid Authority under Section 27 (1) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Authority, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as '1973 Act'] directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorized constructions within 15 days failing which the same would be removed at the cost of the petitioner. Against the said order of demolition, the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 27 (2) of the 1973 Act before the Chairman of the Development Authority, i.e., the Commissioner of the Division on 9.1.2018, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure - 2 to this petition.
According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the next date fixed in the appeal is 12.2.2018. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further states that alongwith the appeal, an application for interim relief has also been filed. However, no orders have been passed so far. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the Development Authority may demolish the constructions.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondent No.4/Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad to pass appropriate orders on the pending stay application within a period of two weeks from the the date of production of a certified copy of this order and thereafter make an endeavour to decide the appeal on merits within a period of four months strictly in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties."
Considering the aforesaid so also the fact that the order of demolition has been challenged by the respondent no.5 by filing an appeal before the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad and the same is pending, we are of the view that no direction as prayed for can be issued at this stage because if the appeal is dismissed, the respondent no.5 is having remedy to file revision under Section 41 of the 1973 Act.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
.
(Jaspreet Singh, J.) (Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J.) Order Date :- 29.8.2019 Ajit/-