Fraud in obtaining building permits triggers action under Section 7-A alongside ongoing proceedings under Section 10 of the Regulation of Building Operations Act, establishing non-mutual exclusivity of provisions.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Chandra Tewari, Advocate the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Shukla, Advocate, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the opposite parties no.4 and 5 and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of an office memorandum dated 24.12.2025, issued by the Prescribed Authority, Regulated Area/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Pratapgarh, to the extent that it declares continuance of proceedings only under Section 10 of the Regulation of Building Operations Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the RBO Act) in respect of certain constructions raised by the opposite party nos. 4 and 5 and not under Section 7-A of the RBO Act.

3. By way of an amendment made in the Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged another office memorandum dated 20.01.2026, issued by the Prescribed Authority canceling a notice under Section 7-A of the RBO Act, 1958 issued to the opposite party no. 4 and stating that the proceedings under Section 10 of RBO Act only will continue against her.

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the erstwhile landlord Raja Ajit Pratap Singh had executed a lease deed dated 28.05.1993 in favour of the opposite party no.5 Sri Mujeeb Ahmad and his two brothers, leasing one seventh portion of the land bearing Gata No.796, measuring one bigha, situated in Belha Ghat, Pratapgarh for a period of 30 years and the share of leased land which came to the opposite party no.5 was 1,295 square feet. The opposite party no.5 obtained sanction of building plan no.544 on 20.01.2005 for raising some commercial and residential constructions upon a plot of land measuring 4187.79 square feet forming a part of the land bearing Gata No.796 on the strength of the aforesaid lease deed dated 28.05.1993.

5. Thereafter, Raja Abhay Pratap Singh, son of Late Raja Ajit Pratap Singh executed a sale deed dated 24.12.2012 in favour of the opposite party no.4 Smt. Sabira Khatoon wife of Sri Mujeeb Ahmad in respect of 275.931 square meter land forming a part of land bearing Gata No.796. The sale deed mentions the boundaries of the land sold to the opposite party no. 4 as follows:-

“East- Part of land bearing Gata No.796

West- 8 feet wide Kachcha passage

North- House of Satish Sharma

South- Gallery.”

6. The petitioner also purchased a plot of land measuring 945.81 square meter forming a part of land bearing Gata No.796 from Raja Abhay Pratap Singh through a sale deed dated 26.12.2012. The land purchased by the petitioner is bounded as below:-

"East- A shop constructed over a part of land bearing Gata No. 796 and thereafter State Bank of India

West- Passage forming a part of Gata No.796

North- Road leading from Chauk to Kachehri

South- Part of land bearing Gata No.796."

7. The opposite party no.4 submitted an application for getting a building plan sanctioned and in the affidavit filed in support of the application, a copy of which has been filed along with a supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, she stated that she had submitted a building plan for raising construction on the land owned by her, bearing Gata No.796, the boundaries whereof as per the registry are as follows:-

"East- House of Majid Ahmed

West- 12 feet wide passage

North- 43 feet wide road

South- Naazma Begum."

8. The same boundaries were shown in the map also. T