Allahabad HC Questions Commissioner's Ex-Parte Order On Third-Party Complaint While Statutory Appeal Under Sec 28-A Was Pending - 2025-09-02

Allahabad High Court Questions Authority for Issuing Demolition Notice While Appeal Was Pending

Allahabad, India – The Allahabad High Court has taken a stern view of the Aligarh Divisional Commissioner's actions, questioning how an ex-parte order based on a third-party complaint could be issued while a statutory appeal concerning the same property was pending for a decision on its merits. A Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Nand Prabha Shukla expressed surprise at the procedural anomaly and directed the Aligarh Development Authority (ADA) to halt further action until the appeal is decided.

The court has demanded an explanation from the Divisional Commissioner and instructed the Vice Chairman of the ADA to file a response, scheduling the next hearing for September 15, 2025.

Background of the Dispute

The case revolves around a property in Aligarh owned by Tariq Ahmed and another petitioner. Construction began in 2019 after the ADA approved the building map. However, the ADA later identified deviations from the sanctioned plan, leading to the property being sealed on November 30, 2021, under Section 28-A(1) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

The petitioners sought to resolve the issue by applying for compounding of the deviations, which was sanctioned on October 6, 2023, after they deposited the required amount. Despite this, the property was sealed again on June 24, 2024, prompting a series of writ petitions filed by the petitioners.

A Cycle of Litigation

The petitioners' legal battle has involved multiple rounds of litigation:

1. Writ C No. 23265 of 2024: Disposed of on July 23, 2024, directing the ADA to consider the petitioners' objections. The authority subsequently issued a demolition notice on October 10, 2024.

2. Writ C No. 36211 of 2024: Disposed of on November 14, 2024, directing the ADA to consider the petitioners' claim that they had already demolished the offending constructions.

3. Appeal under Section 28-A(4): After their representation was rejected, the petitioners filed a statutory appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, which was dismissed on April 21, 2025, on grounds of delay.

4. Writ C No. 15925/2025: A Single Judge of the High Court, on May 19, 2025, set aside the dismissal order. The court observed that the delay was satisfactorily explained and criticized the Commissioner's order as "non-speaking." The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision on the merits.

Court's Observations on Procedural Impropriety

Despite the High Court's clear directive to decide the appeal on its merits, the petitioners alleged that the appellate authority (the Commissioner) entertained an ex-parte complaint from a third party, Ahmad Ashfaq. Based on this complaint, the Commissioner passed an order on June 4, 2025, directing the petitioners to demolish the uncompounded portions. Consequently, the ADA issued a fresh notice-cum-order on June 17, 2025.

The Division Bench expressed its astonishment at this development. In its order, the court noted:

"Once the learned Single Judge of this Court has relegated the matter to the Appellate Authority for considering the same on merit, we are surprised to note that the Appellate Authority had entertained the private complaint and passed order impugned and consequently the purported notice had also bee issued by the ADA inspite of the fact that the appeal is still pending consideration."

The court found this action to be arbitrary and a violation of the principles of natural justice, as a quasi-judicial proceeding (the appeal) was seemingly bypassed in favour of an administrative action based on a private, ex-parte complaint.

The Court's Final Decision

Putting a halt to the demolition proceedings, the High Court directed the Standing Counsel to obtain instructions from the Divisional Commissioner explaining the circumstances under which the third-party complaint was entertained while the statutory appeal was pending.

The court further directed that the pending appeal be decided on its merits in the interim and that the outcome be presented at the next hearing. Meanwhile, any action based on the impugned orders of June 4 and June 17, 2025, has been effectively stayed. The matter is listed to be heard again on September 15, 2025.