Allahabad High Court Questions Aligarh Commissioner for Acting Against Sealed Property Despite Pending Statutory Appeal | Ex-Parte Third-Party Complaints Cannot Be Entertained
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Nand Prabha Shukla has directed that a pending statutory appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Aligarh, be decided on merits. The Court recorded that despite the appeal being under consideration, the appellate authority entertained an ex-parte complaint and issued consequential orders. The Bench observed that the actions taken in the midst of an ongoing statutory appeal required scrutiny and, therefore, directed the Standing Counsel for the respondents to obtain instructions from the appellate authority regarding the circumstances under which such an ex-parte complaint was considered. Meanwhile, the Vice Chairman, Aligarh Development Authority, was directed to file a response in the matter, and the pending appeal was expected to be decided expeditiously.
The matter arose from a dispute concerning construction undertaken by the petitioners over Khasra No.179/1M, 182/2M in Sir Syed Nagar, Dodhpur Mafi, Pargana and Tehsil Kol, Aligarh. In 2019, the petitioners applied for and obtained sanction of their building map from the Aligarh Development Authority (ADA) under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. Subsequently, certain deviations from the approved plan were identified. Consequently, invoking Section 28-A(1) of the 1973 Act, the ADA sealed the property on 30 November 2021.
Following this action, the petitioners submitted an application requesting that any deviations from the sanctioned plan be compounded under the building bye-laws and assured that non-compoundable portions would be removed. Acting upon this, the ADA sanctioned a compounding plan on 6 October 2023, and the petitioners deposited the requisite compounding fee. Despite this, on 31 May 2024, the ADA once again passed an order under Section 28-A(1) of the Act without issuing proper notice to the petitioners, and sealed the premises on 24 June 2024. The petitioners had already filed an application on 6 June 2024 seeking redressal, which was ignored.
Aggrieved by the order dated 31 May 2024, the petitioners filed Writ C No.23265 of 2024, which was disposed of by the High Court on 23 July 2024. The Court directed that the petitioners move an appropriate application before the ADA within two weeks, and further directed that the Authority decide the objections or representations within two weeks thereafter. The sealing order was made subject to the outcome of such consideration.
Pursuant to this direction, the petitioners filed representations before the ADA and the Commissioner, but instead of addressing these, the ADA issued an order on 10 October 2024 directing demolition of the alleged illegal constructions. The petitioners alleged that this order was passed without affording them a proper opportunity of hearing. They again approached the Court in Writ C No.36211 of 2024. By its order dated 14 November 2024, the Division Bench recorded that the Authority had not considered the petitioners’ assertion that the offending constructions had been demolished and noted:
“The plea of the petitioners that they had demolished the offending constructions, ought to be considered by the Authority before any further action is taken in the matter in pursuance of the impugned notice dated 10.10.2024.” The Court accordingly directed the Authority to consider the petitioners’ application dated 6 June 2024 or any further representation, and pass a speaking order within four weeks.
During the pendency of this writ, the ADA disposed of the petitioners’ application by order dated 24 October 2024 pursuant to the earlier order of the Court. The petitioners again made a representation, which was decided by the ADA on 28 January 2025, stating that it acted in accordance with law and not on the basis of any private complaint. The petitioners then filed a statutory appeal under Section 28-A(4) of the 1973 Act before the Commissioner. However, the Commissioner dismissed the appeal on 21 April 2025 citing delay and laches, without a speaking order. The petitioners challenged this dismissal in Writ C No.15925 of 2025. On 19 May 2025, the Single Judge set aside the order, condoned the delay, and directed the Commissioner to decide the appeal expeditiously on merits.
Despite this, on 4 June 2025, the appellate authority entertained a private complaint and directed the petitioners to demolish the uncompounded portions of construction. Consequently, the ADA issued a notice-cum-order dated 17 June 2025. The petitioners alleged that this action was arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice since the statutory appeal was still pending.
The Division Bench noted the procedural history of the matter, particularly the Single Judge’s order of 19 May 2025 which revived the statutory appeal. The Court recorded: “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 been issued by the ADA in spite of the fact that the appeal is still pending consideration.”
The Court further stated: “Before proceeding further in the matter, let learned Standing Counsel for the respondents may obtain instructions from the appellate authority / Divisional Commissioner, Aligarh to the extent as to under what circumstances, once the statutory appeal was pending consideration, a complaint made by the third party has been entertained ex-parte and certain observations have been made on administrative side and consequently, the ADA had issued notice-cum-order dated 17.06.2025.”
It was also recorded: “It is expected that in the meantime the appeal, which is pending consideration, may be decided by the Commissioner concerned on merits and outcome of the said proceeding shall be apprised on the next date fixed in the matter.”
The Court directed that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents obtain instructions from the appellate authority as to the circumstances under which an ex-parte private complaint was entertained despite a pending statutory appeal. The Court further directed that the appeal pending before the Divisional Commissioner, Aligarh, be decided on merits and its outcome apprised to the Court on the next date of hearing. In the interim, the Vice Chairman, Aligarh Development Authority, was directed to file a response in the matter. The Bench ordered that the case be listed again on 15 September 2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Ali Bin Saif, Advocate
For the Respondents: C.S.C., Vibhanshu Vaibhav, Advocates; Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, Standing Counsel for the State
Case Title: Tariq Ahmed and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Case Number: Writ - C No.24064 of 2025
Bench: Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Nand Prabha Shukla
