# M/s Scc Builders Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 644
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-26
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 5663 of 2026
- **Bench:** Atul Sreedharan, Siddharth Nandan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-scc-builders-pvt-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54265
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of
laches."

15. Similar view has also been taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Hari Singh & Ors. v. State
of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 1020, wherein interference has been denied only on the ground of
delay as it would cause serious public prejudice. The Courts have repeatedly held that a writ
petition challenging the notification for acquisition of land, if filed after the possession having been
taken, is not maintainable.

16. In the instant proceeding, what we find is that the acquisition proceedings were initiated in
the year 1996, the award was made in the year 2010 and first time the writ petition was instituted
by the petitioners in the year 2025. As such, there is hardly any scope to exercise our discretionary
jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India in the instant matter. We further observe that
where the Court quashes the acquisition on the grounds personal to individual objectors-such as
vitiated consideration of their specific objections under Section 5A, the relief operates "in
personam" and benefits only those parties, who contested the matter before the judicial forum.

17. In Smt. Krishna Tomar & Ors. (Supra) similar benefits had been denied in terms of
Mahavir Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. and the writ petition was dismissed in the year 2012 itself,
whereas in the instant matter, first time the petitioners approached this Court, without any
challenge to the acquisition proceeding, in the year 2025, only asking for the compensation under
the Act, 2013. As such, no interference can be made at this belated stage.

18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the
order impugned, which may warrant any interference in writ jurisdiction. However, in the interest
of justice, it is provided that in case the petitioners have not lifted the compensation, they are at
liberty to move appropriate application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) for
disbursement of compensation, which was deposited in view of the award made in the year 2010.

19. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 644
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

Writ C No. 5663 of 2026

M/s Scc Builders Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
2 All. M/s Scc Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
645
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the complaint can be decided on the first date itself by the State Commissioner in summary
proceedings under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
HEADNOTE
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - ss.23(3), 44 - Constitution of India - Arts.14, 21 -
Summary proceedings - Right to Accessibility - Division of allotted parking space - Challenge to
order of State Commissioner - Justification:

Held: Allottee, who was 90% disabled, was allotted a flat along with Parking No. UB-37 - After about eight
years, builder divided the said parking into two parts (UB-37A and UB-37B) and allotted part to another
person - Complaint was made and inspection was carried out in presence of parties which revealed that due
to such division, the allottee was facing difficulty in accessing lift - It was also admitted that original allotment
was not cancelled and parking was partitioned without consent of allottee - Held: One of the facets of the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is to provide speedy redressal and for this reason the Act
contemplates that the complaint "shall" be inquired within two weeks of its registration under Section 23(3) -
Proceedings under the Act are summary in nature, designed to be quick, efficient and accessible and the
Commissioner, acting as a quasi-judicial authority, may proceed on admitted facts and documents on record -
Mandatory observance of accessibility norms under Section 44 requires that building plan and completion
must adhere to accessibility rules - Right to Accessibility cannot now be confined to public infrastructure but
demands that in "community living" also, where there are common facilities like lift, pavements, playgrounds,
community centres and gymnasium, the right should be unhindered - Right to Accessibility is a fundamental
right and extends to buildings used for community living - It is a fundamental right of a person with disability
to have access to common facilities and any hindrance to such access, including access to lift from parking
space, would be violative of such right - In the present case, representative of the petitioner was part of the
proceedings and admitted that the original allotment was not cancelled and parking was subsequently
partitioned without consent - Approach of the Commissioner that an allottee with 90% disability cannot be
made to run from pillar to post cannot be faulted - Spot inspection conducted in presence of parties clearly
established hindrance in accessing lift - Petitioner failed to place material to justify division of parking - No
prejudice was caused and no violation of principles of natural justice is made out - No infirmity or perversity
found in the impugned order - Court declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226.
Development Authorities in the State directed to incorporate necessary guidelines to ensure that persons with
disabilities are not put to an inequitable position and that sanctioned maps for community living provide
proper parking spaces with clear access to common facilities like lift - Government to ensure mandatory
observance of accessibility rules at the stage of granting permission to build and issuance of completion
certificate. (Paras 9, 12, 14, 18, 19, 20, 24) (E-5)
CASE LAW CITED
State of Himanchal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharma (1986) 2 SCC 68;
Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 761;
Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2018) 2 SCC 413;
Ravinder Kumar Dharwal v. Union of India (2023) 2 SCC 209;
Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission (2021) 5 SCC 370;
Rajiv Raturi v. Union of India (2024) 1 SCC 654

List of Acts
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016;
Constitution of India.
646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Keyword
Right to Accessibility; Persons with Disabilities; Summary proceedings; Parking space; Community living;
Fundamental right; Accessibility norms; Hindrance to access; Natural justice.
CASE ARISING FROM
From the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the State Commissioner under the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016.
Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Devendra Singh, Pravindra Singh.
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C., Tejasvi Misra.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth Nandan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Devendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Tejasvi Misra, learned
counsel for the Ghaziabad Development Authority and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.11.2025 by which
Complaint Reference No.137 of 2025 Mrs. Bobby Bagga Vs. President/Director/Competent
Authority, M/s SCC Builders, Pvt. Ltd.) under the provisions of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 has been decided.

3. The sole argument that the petitioner has raised is that on the first date itself, the complaint
was decided.

4. We have perused the record. The order sheet has not been brought on record.

5. Brief conspectus of facts are that the allottee who is 90% disabled, was given an allotment
by builder in one of the projects named as SCC Sapphire being Flat No. D 509, Block - D; as per
terms of the agreement, she was also allotted Parking No. UB - 37. Subsequently, after eight years,
another Flat was sold by the builder. In pursuance thereof, he divided Parking No. UB 37 into UB
37 A and 37 B which was originally allotted to Mrs. Bobby Bagga.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action, she approached the Ghaziabad Development Authority
who carried out inspection on 16.09.2025 and submitted an inquiry report on 25.10.2025. The State
Commissioner took note of the fact that the spot inspection was carried out in the presence of the
parties and it clearly reveals that the complaint made by Mrs. Bobby Bagga was correct.

7. Perusal of the impugned order also clearly demonstrates that an adequate opportunity was
given to the petitioner and argument of his representative before the State Commissioner was also
2 All. M/s Scc Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
647
considered. For ready reference, the following paragraphs of the impugned order are reproduced
hereinbelow:

"'उजलेखनीय है कक प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में ववशेष कायाथधधकारी, प्रिारी प्रवतथन जो-/, गान्जयािाि
ववकास प्राधधकरण गान्जयािाि की आख्या पत्राांक 1470/ प्रवतथन जो- आई०जी०आर०एस 0/2025 दिनाांक 2510-2025 जोकक न्जलाधधकारी, गान्जयािाि को सम्िोधधत एवां भशकायतकताथ को पृष्ठाांककत है, में उन्जलखखत
ककया गया है कक राजनगर एक्सिेंशन में न्स्थत ग्रुप हाउभसांग एससीसी सफायर के बिजडर द्वारा
भशकायतकताथ को अन्िांदित पाककिंग स्थान यू०िी०-37 को वविान्जत कर िो िागों में िाांि दिया गया है, न्जस
कारण भशकायतकताथ को पाककिंग, से भलफ्ि तक जाने में परेशानी हो रही है, के सम्िन्ध में भशकायतकताथ
द्वारा ईमेल के माध्यम से िी भशकायत की गयी थी, के सम्िन्ध में पुनः आईजीआरएस के माध्यम से
भशकायत की गयी है।

उक्त के सम्िन्ध में क्षेत्रीय अभियन्ता द्वारा स्थल ननरीक्षणोपरान्त अवगत कराया गया है कक
प्रिगत ग्रुप हाउभसांग के ववकासकताथ के प्रनतननधध एवां भशकायतकताथ िीमती िोिी िग्गा के साथ दिनाांक
16.09.2025 को पाककिंग स्थल का ननरीक्षण ककया गया। स्थल पर िीमती िोिी िग्गा से कई स्थानों पर
गाडडयाां खडी कराकर भलफ्ि में जाने तक िेखा गया। स्थल पर िीमती िोिी िग्गा द्वारा िताया गया कक
उनको यूिी-37 नम्िर की पाककिंग आवांदित हुई थी न्जसे बिजडर द्वारा िो िागों में वविान्जत करते हुए अन्य
व्यन्क्त को आवांदित कर दिया गया है, न्जस कारण िीमती िोिी िग्गा को भलफ्ि तक जाने में परेशानी हो
रही है।

तिोपरान्त सहायक अभियन्ता, प्रवतथन जोन-1 गान्जयािाि ववकास प्राधधकरण के कायाथलय पत्र
सांख्या-173/प्रवतथन जोन-1/2025 दिनाांक 03-10-2025 द्वारा मै० एस०सी०सी० बिजडसथ प्रा०भल०, ग्रुप
हाउभसांग एस०सी०सी० सफायर, राजनगर एक्सिेन्शन, गान्जयािाि को ननिेभशत ककया गया है कक सुिी िॉिी
िग्गा फ्लैि सांख्या डी-509 को मूल पाककिंग स्थान स्वीकृत मानधचत्र एवां अनुिन्ध के अनुसार आवांदित ककया
जाना सुननन्श्चत करें।

मा० न्यायालय द्वारा गान्जयािाि ववकास प्राधधकरण की उपरोक्त आख्या दिनाांक 25-10-2025
के पररशीलनोपरान्त पृच्छा की गई कक ववपक्षी द्वारा भशकायतकताथ को आवांदित पाककिंग को 08 साल िाि
पररवनतथत ककए जाने की आवश्यकता क्यों पडी? क्या ववपक्षी द्वारा भशकायतकताथ को आवांदित एक िडी
पाककिंग को िो िागों में वविान्जत कर आधे िाग को अन्य आवांिी को प्रिान ककया जाना वाखणन्ज्यक पररदृश्य
नहीां है? ववपक्षी द्वारा भशकायतकताथ को पाककिंग आवांदित ककए जाने के उपरान्त उसे ननरस्त पररवनतथत क्यों
ककया गया? क्या ववपक्षी को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कक भशकायतकताथ सुिी िॉिी िग्गा (90 प्रनतशत चलन किया
दिव्याांग) िार-िार मा० न्यायालय अथवा अन्य ककसी प्राधधकरण में आने-जाने में समथथ हैं? मा० न्यायालय
द्वारा की गई पृच्छाओां को ववपक्षी के अधधकृत प्रनतननधध द्वारा स्वीकार ककया गया ककन्तु बिन्िुवार उिर
प्रिान ककए जाने हेतु अनतररक्त समय की माांग की गई न्जसे मा० न्यायालय द्वारा अस्वीकार ककया गया।"
648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. The statement of objects and reasons of the "Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016"
while considering the 19 specified disabilities, enumerates various rights vis-a-vis duties and
responsibilities of the appropriate Government. It is not disputed that the inquiry which is being
conducted under the Act by the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner for persons with
disabilities is considered to be a summary proceeding designed to be quick, efficient and
accessible, rather than lengthy and formal. The forum acts as a quasi-judicial authority and the
Commissioner acts as a civil court for specific purpose i.e. empowered to summon witnesses,
receive evidence and enforce production of records, if the need arises. However, it being a
summary proceeding and the process contemplated is, with an objective to provide speedy
redressal, the Act is also to give effect to the United Nations Convention on the Right of Persons
with Disability and for matters connected therewith an incidental thereto. The United Nations
General Assembly adopted its convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability on 13.12.2006;
which lays down certain principles for empowerment of Persons with disability, which includes
"accessibility" and India is a signatory to the said Convention and has also ratified the same on
01.10.2007. It is for the implementation of the said principles that the Parliament has enacted the
said legislation i.e. "Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016".

9. That one of the facets of the mechanism, is to provide speedy redressal and it is for this
reason Act, 2016 contemplates that the complaint " shall " be inquired within 2 weeks of its
registration; under Section 23(3) of the Act, 2016. We also find that under Chapter VII of the Act,
2016, makes special provisions for persons with disabilities with high support needs, which has
been prescribed, more particularly under Section 44 of the Act, 2016. It has been provided that no
establishment shall be granted permission to build any structure if the building does not adhere to
the Rules formulated.

10. For ready reference, Section 44 is quoted herein below:

"44. Mandatory observance of accessibility norms. (1) No establishment shall be
granted permission to build any structure if the building plan does not adhere to the rules
formulated by the Central Government under section 40.

(2) No establishment shall be issued a certificate of completion or allowed to take
occupation of a building unless it has adhered to the rules formulated by the Central Government."

11. Perusal of the impugned order also indicates that the forum was conscious of the fact that
the original parking was allotted in a building, which was granted the completion certificate after
examining the approved map, which necessarily was required to adhere to the mandate of Section
44 of the Act, 2016. The representative of the petitioner who had appeared, had also not denied the
fact that the original allotment was not cancelled and the fact that the original parking allotted was
subsequently partitioned without consent of the original allottee, was also admitted. Taking into
account the aforesaid evidence and the admitted position, since nature of the proceedings were
summary in nature, the Commissioner had proceeded on the basis of the admitted facts and
documents on record, while not finding it necessary, to call for parawise reply.

12. On a pointed query to the learned counsel for the petitioner that in case further indulgence
being given by the Commissioner, what objection or document contrary to the finding in the
2 All. M/s Scc Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
649
impugned order, could have been produced; he had only relied on his argument that the
proceedings were allegedly ex parte which as stated herein above could not have been accepted
because representative of the petitioner was part of the proceeding and he had admitted the facts
that the original allotment was not cancelled or whether he could have challenged the original
allotment after five years. Therefore, approach of the Commissioner that an allottee with 90%
disability cannot be made to run from pillar to post and on account of fact as the development
authority had already carried out a spot inspection and submitted a report on 25.10.2025, which
was not controverted by the representative of the petitioner, cannot be faulted; and accordingly we
do not find any error in the proceedings or violation of the principles of natural justice.

13. At this juncture, the Court also takes note of the fact that the "Right to Accessibility" now
being a fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India (State of
Himanchal Pradesh vs. Umed Ram Sharma 1986 (2) SCC 68), is broad enough to incorporate
and be extended to a "Right to Accessibility in a Community Living; also. These rights are
essential for enabling persons with disabilities (hereinafter referred as "PWDs) to live
independently, participate in a Society and enjoy their rights on a equal basis with others. Article
14 of the Constitution of India upholds equal access to spaces and services, as well. (See: Jeeja
Ghosh v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 761; Rajive Raturi vs. Union of India (2018) 2 SCC 413;
Ravinder Kumar Dharwal vs. Union of India, 2023 (2) SCC 209; Vikash Kumar vs. Union
Public Service Commission, 2021 (5) SCC 370 and Rajiv Raturi vs. Union of India and others
2024 (1) SCC 654)

14. The Right to Accessibility, can not now be confined to the principles of accessibility in
public infrastructure; but now it demands that in "Community Living" also, where there are
common facilities like lift, pavements, playgrounds, community centres and gymnasium etc., the
"Right to Accessibility" should be unhindered.

15. The sanctioning of the map for a building meant for community living, now ought to take
into account parking space with clear and unhindered access to the common facilities like lift for
PWDs; and any change or hindrance to the access of common facilities (including access to lift
from the parking lot), should be seen as violation of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. In the case of Rajiv Raturi vs. Union of India and others, 2024 (1) SCC
654 the Apex Court being ceased with the issue of "Right to Accessibility", also considered a report
of a Committee on 'Rights of Persons with Disability"; and found that accessibility is related to
groups, whereas reasonable accommodation is related to individuals. State parties need to set
accessibility standards, which must be negotiated with organizations of 'Persons with Disability',
and need to be specified for service providers, builders and other relevant stake holders.
Accessibility standards must be broad and standardised in case of individuals, who have
disabilities, that were not taken into account. The accessibility standards were developed to use the
modes, methods and meaning, offering to achieve accessibility; and where the application of
disability standards may not be sufficient to ensure them access, in such cases, principles of
reasonable accommodation may apply.

16. The duty to provide reasonable accommodation is an ex-nunc duty, which means that it is
enforceable from the moment an individual with an impairment needs it; and in a given situation,
650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
individual accommodation seeks to achieve individual justice in the sense that non-discrimination
and equality are assured, taking the dignity, autonomy, and choice of the individual into account;
and as such, accommodation may also be required for a scenario which falls beyond the scope of an
accessibility standard. The decision to provide it or not depends on whether it is reasonable or
whether it imposes a disproportionate and undue audit.

17. The Court is also persuaded from the fact that the Rule of Law also demands that the
locomotor disability, visible impairment, hearing and speech impairments and neurodevelopmental
disorder and learning disability, multiple disability or survivors of accidents, crime etc. are to be
protected, in case of the disabilities which restricts a normal pattern in daily chores. Section 34
deals with the mandatory observance of the accessibility Rules to be framed by the Central
Government under Section 40 and the consequences of non-compliance; which under sub-clause
(1) states that no establishment shall be granted permission to built any structure, if the building
plan does not adhere to the Rules formulated by the Central Government under Section 40; and
sub-clause (2) stipulates that no establishment shall be issued a certificate of completion or allow to
take occupation of a building unless it has adhered to the Rules formulated by the Central
Government. Therefore, at both stages-when the building plan is prepared and at the stage of
completion-mandatory adherence to the accessibility Rules is envisaged by the Act.

18. In the facts of the present case, we find that the Commissioner has taken note of the fact
that during the on spot inspection, Mrs. Bobby Bagga's right to accessibility to a common facility
e.g. lift, was assessed by observing contingencies, wherein, her vehicle being parked at the different
places, whether gave her an unhindered access to the lift in view of her disability; and it was found
the act of the builder, by dividing her parking into two, was causing inherence to the incumbent,
from accessing the lift.

19. We have no hesitation in holding that the 'Right to Accessibility' cannot be confined only
in public places but as a fundamental right, it is also to be extended to a structure or building which
is being utilized as "community living"; and as such right to accessibility which is a fundamental
right, has to be adhered to in residential buildings, which caters to the requirement of providing a
shelter with common facilities like lift, pavement, playgrounds, community centres, gymnasium
etc. It is a fundamental right of a PWD to have right to accessibility, for facilities which are
common in a building or structure, which is providing a shelter to an incumbent.

20. Apart from the aforesaid reasons, we find that the petitioner has failed to bring on record
the allotment letter which could have clearly demonstrated that the parking which was allotted to
Mrs. Bobby Bagga was UB - 37; and it is only subsequent to the allotment made to one Virendra
Singh, that parking was split into 37A and 37B, without the consent of the original allottee; but
nevertheless representative of the petitioner was duly heard and the impugned order is based on the
inspection report of the Ghaziabad Development Authority, which was done in the presence of the
parties. It was only thereafter, the inquiry report dated 25.10.2025 was submitted.

21. Perusal of the report also indicates that efforts were made to find out alternative parking
for the allottee with 90% disabilities but it was found that no other parking is suitable for her; to
access the lift for her Flat and for that reason also, an alternative arrangement was also not feasible.
2 All. Benara Udyog Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
651

22. It has been held by this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court that exercise of extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has to be made only in circumstances
where there is apparent injustice being caused to the petitioner and thus violation of the principles
of nature justice, which leads to some prejudice to the petitioner. In the present case, we do not find
any prejudice being caused to the petitioner; and on the contrary by unilaterally dividing
petitioner's parking into two parking spaces, it has been to the detriment of the allottee, the same
cannot be sustained; and in view of the aforesaid admitted position and documents, no infirmity or
perversity can be found in the impugned order or any prejudice being caused to the petitioner or
there being any violation of the procedure prescribed, under the Act.

23. In view of the aforesaid and nature of the proceedings, we decline to exercise our
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

24. However, we find it appropriate in the facts of the case to issue directions, as follows:-

(i) That, the Development Authorities in the State of Uttar Pradesh to incorporate necessary
guidelines, which may be necessary to ensure that persons with disability are not put to a
inequitable position and the maps which is being sanctioned for such community living, it may be
necessary that proper parking spaces may be made for persons with disability, from where there is a
clear access to a common facility like lift; and also provisions for convenience of "persons with
disabilities" to have access to other common facilities like pavement, playgrounds, community
centres, gymnasium etc.

(ii) It is expected from the Government to ensure mandatory observance of the Accessibility
Rules applicable, at the stage of granting permission to build any structure and issuance of
certificate of completion; and it may also be verified that there has been a mandatory adherence to
the Accessibility Rules as envisaged.

25. With the above, the present writ petition is disposed off.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 651
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 6098 of 2016 and other connected cases

Benara Udyog Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration