JUDGMENT :

1. On oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner, Principal Secretary Urban Planning and Development, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, is allowed to be impleaded as respondent no. 4.

2. Necessary correction in the array of parties be carried out during the course of the day.

3. Heard Sri Chandra Shekher Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri V.K. Ojha, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.

4. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:-

"i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 08.03.2021 registered against the petitioner as Case Crime No. 0219 of 2021, P.S. Naini, Prayagraj, under section 447 I.P.C. and 28(1) U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, (Annexure No. 1 to this Writ Petition).

ii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent no. 4 not to arrest the Petitioner during the pendency of this writ petition."

5. The petitioner is the wife of a retired army personnel. It appears that in the year 2013-2014, she started constructions over the plot of 153.36 square meters being part of Arazi No. 107/1, Village-Chaka, Tehsil-Karchana, District-Allahabad, which fall within regulatory area of the respondent no. 3, i.e., Prayagraj Development Authority, District- Prayagraj. However, she received a notice dated 27.03.2014, issued by the Zonal Officer of the respondent no. 3, requiring her to show cause as to how she is raising construction without obtaining permission from the respondent no. 3. It appears that, thereafter, the petitioner submitted a compounding building plan vide application dated 21.08.2017 and also deposited the requisite fees vide receipt no. 1829, book no. 219, dated 21.08.2017, Rs. 1,880/-. Again a notice dated 26.08.2017 was issued by the Zonal Officer, Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad, to the petitioner, which is reproduced below:-

^^izs”kd]

tksuy vf/kdkjh]

bykgkckn fodkl izkf/kdj.k]

bykgkcknA

lsok esa]

Jhefr lhrk nsoh]

iRuh Jh jke yky ljkst

fuokfluh&xzke vtqZuiqj] rglhy iVVh]

ftyk izrkixढ+A

i=kad% 07@tksu&4@miŒ&4lh@'keu@foŒizkŒ@2017&18 fnukad 26-08-2017

fo"k; %& vkQ vkjkth la[;k 107@,] ekStk pkSdk vjSy djNuk] bykgkckn es nkf[ky 'keu ekufp= ds lEca/k esA

Ekgksn;]

mi;qDr fo"k;d ds lEca/k es voxr djkuk gS fd vki }kjk vkjkth la[;k 107] ekStk pkdk vjSy] djNuk] bykgkckn dk 'keu ekufp= Lohd`fr gsrq nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA ekufpr es nf'kZr dh&Iyku es LFky dh nwjh Li"V ugh gks ik jgh gSA dh&Iyku es iqjkuk ;equk fczt jhok jksM ,o u;k ;equk fczt jksM tgka ij feyrh gS] mlds Økflax ls jhok jksM dh nwjh ,o jhok jksM ls LFky dh nwjh izeq[k ySaMekdZ dks fn[kkrs gq, vafdr djkuk gksxk] ftlls Hkw&miksx vk[;k izkIr djuk lEHko gksxkA

vr% vki i= izkfIr ds ,d lIrkg ds Hkhrj mijksDrkuqlkj 'keu ekufp= es la'kks/ku djuk lqfuf'pr djsA

Hkonh;

gŒviŒ

tksuy vf/kdkjh]

bykgkckn fodkl izkf/kdj.k

bykgkckn

6. The aforesaid notice was allegedly sent by the Zonal Officer to the petitioner at the address "Village-Arjanpur, Tehsil- Patti, Pratapgarh".

7. It appears that, thereafter, instead of assisting the petitioner and ascertaining the distance of the plot from Reeva Road, New Yamuna Bridge Road crossing and also from Reeva Road as main land mark, the respondent no. 3 rejected the building plan by order dated 28.09.2017, which is reproduced below:-

^^izs"kd]

tksuy vf/kdkjh]

bykgkckn fodkl izkf/kdj.k]

bykgkcknA

lsok es]

Jhefr lhrk nsoh]

iRuh Jh jke yky ljksTk]

fuokfluh&xzke vtqZuiqj] rglhy iVVh]

ftyk izrkixढ+A

i=kad %& 24@tksu&4@miŒ&4ch@'keu@foŒizkŒ@2017&18 fnukad 28-09-2017

fo"k; % ikVZ vkQ vkjkth la[;k 107@,] ekStk pkdk ijxuk vjSy] rglhu djNuk] bykgkckn es nkf[ky 'keu ekufp= ds lEca/k 0 esA

egksn;k]

d`I;k vkids }kjk ikVZ vkQ vkjkth la[;k 107@,] ekStk pkdk] vjSy] djNuk] bykgkckn ds nkf[ky 'keu ekufp= dh vkifŸk;ksa ds fujkdj.k ,oa la'kksf/kr 'keu ekufp= nkf[ky djus gsrq i= fnukad 26-08-2017 ds }kjk lwfpr fd;k x;k] fdUrq vki