Recently, the Allahabad High Court took strong exception to rampant illegal construction in a notified residential area of Prayagraj, expressing serious concern over the manner in which development authorities permitted violations to continue despite repeated undertakings and court intervention. The Court’s scrutiny arose in a writ petition highlighting how unlawful construction activity, allegedly carried out with official connivance, threatened not only town planning norms but also the safety and basic rights of neighbouring residents
The case arose from a dispute in the New Katra Housing Scheme, a residential locality dating back to the 1930s. The petitioner, a long-time resident of the area, approached the High Court alleging that owners of an adjacent plot had raised construction far beyond the sanctioned building plan approved by the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA). According to the Petitioner, mandatory setbacks were completely ignored, a basement was constructed beyond permissible limits, and additional floors were raised contrary to the approved map. It was contended that such construction endangered the foundation of the petitioner’s old house and obstructed his right to air and sunlight
The counsel for the Petitioner further pointed out that although the PDA initially sealed the premises in May 2025 for violations, the property was subsequently de-sealed on the basis of an affidavit filed by one of the owners, promising to remove deviations and adhere strictly to the sanctioned plan. Despite this assurance, construction allegedly continued unabated and beyond the compoundable limits, compelling the Petitioner to approach the High Court when no effective action followed
On the other hand, the private Respondents argued that the Petitioner was merely a complainant with no locus standi, claiming that any deviation from the sanctioned map was a matter strictly between the PDA and the plot owners. They also submitted that no easementary rights of the petitioner were affected and relied on Supreme Court precedent to contend that a third party could not pursue demolition once the authority had taken cognizance of the complaint. The PDA, however, conceded before the Court that the construction was indeed not in accordance with the sanctioned plan and had exceeded permissible compounding limits
Examining the record, the High Court made sharp observations on both the conduct of the builders and the role of the development authority. The Court noted that it “fails to understand under which power” the PDA had ordered de-sealing of the premises without first ensuring removal of illegal, non-compoundable construction. It further observed that the respondents had shown “no respect for the Court” by repeatedly violating undertakings given both to the authority and before the Court itself, describing their conduct as “highly depreciable” and amounting to misleading the judiciary
Rejecting the objection on locus standi, the Court held that illegal construction affecting air, sunlight, and structural safety of a neighbouring property clearly prejudices the rights of an affected resident. The Bench also recorded that such violations could not have continued “except with the connivance of the authorities,” underlining systemic lapses in enforcement by the PDA
In its decision, the High Court permitted the authorities to proceed forthwith with the demolition of all portions of the building that were beyond the compoundable limits and contrary to the sanctioned plan. It warned that failure to complete the demolition would invite personal explanations from both the present and former Vice-Chairmen of the PDA, particularly in relation to the unauthorized de-sealing of the premises. The matter has been listed for further monitoring, with the Vice-Chairman of the PDA directed to remain personally present before the Court on the next date of hearing on 18.12.2025.
Case Title: Badal Chatterjee V. State of U.P. And Others
Case No.: Writ - C No. - 38819 Of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr Justice Saral Srivastava
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Chandan Sharma, Adv. Rahul Agarwal
Counsel for the Respondent: C.S.C., Adv. Harsh Vardhan Gupta, Adv. Vibhu Rai
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :