# Smt. Vandana Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 516
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-23
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 596 of 2026
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-vandana-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54725
- **Pages:** 13

## Text

_Characters 0–39,798 of 40,711. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39798 for what follows._

516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
30. In the present case, the impugned orders are administrative in nature and do not by
themselves, adjudicate upon the rights of individual litigants and orders are passed in accordance of
law as appears from the statutory provisions discussed above.

31. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The challenge to impugned orders is not maintainable in
the absence of any challenge to the validity of the statutory provision under which it is passed, and
further, applying the settled principle that a later enactment prevails over an earlier enactment in
case of inconsistency, the transfer of maintenance proceedings from the Family Court constituted
under the Family Courts Act, 1984 to the Gram Nyayalaya under Section 16 of the Gram
Nyayalayas Act, 2008 is held to be valid.

32. Accordingly, both writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to cost.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 516
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ C No. 596 of 2026

Smt. Vandana Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
 Whether it is legal/correct to drop the proceedings u/s 7-A of the RBO Act when the record prima facie
indicates that the said proceedings are warranted?

Headnotes
A. Property Law - Regulation of Building Operations Act, 1958: Section 10 - Locus of the
petitioner - If such fraudulent acts come to the knowledge of the authorities, they cannot refuse
to take appropriate action in accordance with law on the pretext that the petitioner had earlier
not pressed the demand of action under the law. Obtaining sanction of building bye-laws in violation of
building bye-laws, by making false representations relating to material particulars and by playing fraud, would
adversely affect the planned development of the locality and it would affect the public at large. Moreover,
when such a conduct comes to knowledge of the Courts, the Courts cannot shut their eyes and
chose to ignore the illegalities. The Courts' role is larger than mere protection of the rights of the parties.
The Courts have to act as guardian of the Rule of Law. (Para 37)

B. The Hon'ble Court is only examining the correctness of the decision dropping proceedings u/s
7-A of the RBO Act on the sole ground that in the order 21.02.2024 passed in dated Writ-C No. 1726 of
2024, this Court has directed to conclude the proceedings u/s 10 of the RBO Act only, leaving the questions of
facts to be decided by the Prescribed Authority. (Para 38)
3 All. Smt. Vandana Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
517
The only ground pressed for dropping the proceedings u/s 7-A of the RBO Act is that in the order
dated 21.02.2024, this Court had directed for conclusion of proceedings u/s 10 only and,
therefore, the proceedings u/s 7-A cannot be taken against the opposite party no.4. This ground
cannot be accepted for dropping the proceedings u/s 7-A,

(1) firstly, on the ground that the petitioner had not surrendered or foregone her claim for action u/s 7-A of
the Act against the opposite party no.4. The petitioner had sought a direction for conclusion of proceedings
initiated by a notice dated 02.01.2024. The notice dated 02.01.2024 is not available on the record and it
cannot be ascertained that the said notice did not make a mention of Section 7-A of the Act. Therefore, the
doctrine of election does not apply to the present case.
(2) Secondly, the order dated 21.02.2024 does not record that this court had prohibited action u/s 7-A of the
RBO Act or had condoned the fraud played by the opposite party no. 4, if any, while submitting the
applications for sanction of the building plans. Therefore, the order dated 21.02.2024 does not amount
to a direction for closure of proceedings against the opposite party no.4 u/s 7-A of the Act.
(3)Thirdly, even if the petitioner has no right to demand initiation of proceedings u/s 7-A of the RBO Act
against the opposite party no. 4, the initiation of such proceedings is not dependent upon the
petitioner's right to claim initiation of the proceedings. (Para 42)

When the inquiry report dated 06.02.2024 prima facie indicates that the sanction for building
has been obtained by making a false statement and misrepresentation regarding boundaries of
the land, which amounts to playing a fraud upon the authority, proceedings u/s 7-A of the RBO
Act have to be initiated irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner has a right to press for
initiation of the proceedings or not. Therefore, the order dropping proceedings u/s 7-A of the Act is
unsustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. (Para 43)

The office memorandum dated 20.01.2026, issued by the Prescribed Authority, Regulated Area/Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Sadar, Pratapgarh, canceling the notice u/s 7-A of the RBO Act, 1958 against the opposite party
no.4 and stating that the proceedings u/s 10 of RBO Act only will continue against her, is quashed. The
opposite party no. 2/Prescribed Authority is directed to conclude the proceedings instituted against the
opposite party no. 4 u/s 7-A of the RBO Act, as also the proceedings u/s 10 of the RBO Act, expeditiously, in
accordance of the law. (Para 44)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Mrs. G.S.J. Shapoorjee Vs. Allahabad Development Authority, 2016 (11) ADJ 524 (DB); 2016 SCC OnLine All
3088 (Para 21)
2. D.B. Kausar Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2023 SCC Online Allahabad 178 (Para 21)
3. Smt. Suresh Kumari Jaiswal Vs. Prescribed Authority and others, Writ Petition No. 12962 (M/S) of 2019
(Para 21)
4. Laxmi Chand Gupta Vs. Prescribed Authority, Writ Petition No. 14295 (M/S) of 2019 (Para 21)
5. Babubhai Muljibhai Patel Vs. Nandlal Khodidas Barot and others, AIR 1974 SC 2105; (1974) 2 SCC 706
(Para 24)
6. Commissioner of Endowments and Others Vs. Vittal Rao and Others, (2005) 4 SCC 120 (Para 24)
7. Sucha Singh Lodhi (dead) through LRs Vs. Baldev Raj Walia and another, (2018) 6 SCC 733 (Para 24)

List of Acts
 Regulation of Building Operations Act, 1958.

List of Keywords
 sanction, building, bye-laws, violation, doctrine of election, fraud, closure, false, misrepresentation.

Appearances for Parties
518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
For Petitioner(s): Rakesh Chandra Tewari
For Respondent(s): C.S.C., Mohammad Aslam Khan

(Delivered by Hon'ble 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; and

 South- Gallery."
3 All. Smt. Vandana Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
519
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. The map was sanctioned on
23.03.2017 without verifying the boundaries of the land mentioned in the sale deed. The opposite
party no.4 had submitted two other applications for sanction of building plans for raising
constructions on the property and those building plans were also sanctioned on 20.01.2005 and
18.05.2022.

9. The contention of the petitioner is that the opposite party no.4 has mentioned false
boundaries of the property in her application for sanction of building plan and in the affidavit filed
in support thereof and she has obtained the sanction by playing a fraud upon the authority.

10. When the opposite party no.4 started raising constructions, the petitioner filed an
application stating that the construction was being raised in violation of the sanction plan. The
construction was stopped and a notice under Section 10 of RBO Act was issued to the opposite
party no. 4.

11. The petitioner filed Writ-C No. 1726 of 2024, which was disposed off by means of an
order dated 21.02.2024 passed by a coordinate bench of this court, directing the Prescribed
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Authority to conclude the proceedings initiated by him by issuance of notice under Section 10
expeditiously in accordance with law.

12. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 04.10.2024 to the State Government for
instituting an inquiry and the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., passed an order dated
01.12.2024 directing the Chief Town and Country Planner, U.P., to submit a report. A two-member
committee, consisting of the Assistant Town Planner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj and Associate
Town Planner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, submitted a report dated 05.12.2024 stating that a
building plan no.544 was sanctioned on 20.01.2005 in respect of 4187.79 square feet land. There
was no provision for parking in the plan sanctioned for commercial/residential use. The plan does
not show front setback. The plan shows a 12-feet wide private passage towards the right-hand side
of the building, but no such passage is in existence. Regarding building plan no. 29 sanctioned on
23.03.2017, it was stated that the sanctioned plan shows a front setback of 1 meter width, whereas
as per the Building and Development Bye-laws, 2008, front setback should be 1.2 meters wide.
Regarding the third building plan no. 163, sanctioned on 18.05.2022, it was stated that the front
setback shown in the plan is 1 meter wide, whereas it should be 4.5 meters wide as per the byelaws. There is no provision for parking in the sanctioned plan, whereas in the residential building
plan there should be place for at least one car parking and in building plans for commercial
buildings there should be provision for one car parking for every 100 square meters of surface area.
The site plan of the sanctioned building plan shows a 6 feet wide private passage, whereas in the
earlier sanctioned plan dated 20.01.2005 showed a 12 feet wide passage. However, no passage was
found in existence. The inquiry committee also reported that constructions have been raised in
deviation from the sanctioned plan.

13. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid inspection and inquiry, the opposite party no.4
gave a representation dated 04.08.2025 to the Joint Secretary, Awas Evam Shahari Vikas Niyojan
Anubhag, Government of Uttar Pradesh stating that any action initiated on the complaint made by
the petitioner be dropped. On the aforesaid representation filed by the opposite party no.4, Joint
Secretary called for a report from the District Magistrate/Regulating Authority Regulated Area
Pratapgarh.

14. The Regulating Authority obtained an opinion from the District Government Council
(Civil) and thereafter a notice dated 09.12.2025 was issued to the opposite party no.4, under
Section 7-A of the RBO Act directing the opposite party no.4 to appear on 17.12.2025 and present
her case.

15. The petitioner submitted an application dated 15.12.2025 to the Prescribed Authority,
stating that constructions had been raised by the opposite party no.4 and her husband, Shri Mujeeb
Ahmad (the opposite party no.5) and, therefore, a notice under Section 7-A of the RBO Act should
be issued to the opposite party no.5 also.

16. On 22.12.2025, the Prescribed Authority sent a letter to the Joint Secretary of the State
Government, stating that a notice under Section 7-A of the RBO Act had already been issued to the
opposite party no.4 on 09.12.2025 and it will be modified and a notice under section 7-A will be
issued to the opposite party no.4 and opposite party no.5 also.
3 All. Smt. Vandana Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
521
17. On 23.12.2025, the opposite party no.4 submitted an application to the Prescribed
Authority stating that the petitioner and her husband, Gyanendra Singh had previously filed Writ-C
No.1726 of 2024, which was disposed of by means of an order dated 21.02.2024 with the consent
of the learned counsel for the parties by issuing a direction to the Prescribed Authority to conclude
the proceedings initiated by him by issuance of notice under Section 10 to the opposite party no.4,
expeditiously in accordance with the law and, therefore, proceedings under Section 10 only can
continue against her, and no proceedings can be undertaken under section 7-A of the RBO Act. It is
upon this application that the Prescribed Authority has decided to continue proceedings under
Section 10 RBO Act only and has dropped the proceedings under section 7-A of the Act.

18. The petitioner has challenged the dropping of the proceeding under Section 7-A by
filing this petition.

19. The opposite party no.4 has filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that proceedings
under Section 10 of the Act are already going on against her. The District Magistrate had
constituted a team for submitting a report regarding the dispute between the petitioner and the
opposite party no.4 and in the report dated 06.02.2024 submitted by a Committee consisting of
ADM Finance/Revenue Pratapgarh, Tahsildar Sadar Pratapgarh, and Junior Engineer Regulated
Area Pratapgarh, it has been stated that the ground floor construction is about 15 years old. A
building plan for raising construction on the first floor was sanctioned on 18.05.2022 against which
objections were filed. Initially, a direction was issued to maintain status quo, but this order has been
set aside. In case of any dispute regarding title, the parties may obtain relief from the competent
court. No administrative action is required in the matter.

20. Sri. Rakesh Chandra Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that
when it is apparent that the opposite party no.4 has obtained sanction of building plans by making
false representations regarding boundaries of the land in question in her application for sanction of
building plan and the affidavit filed in support thereof, the sanction has been obtained by playing a
fraud and therefore, the sanction ought to be canceled under Section 7-A of the RBO Act.

21. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by a
Coordinate bench of this court in Mrs. G.S.J. Shapoorjee Vs. Allahabad Development
Authority: 2016 (11) ADJ 524 (DB) = 2016 SCC OnLine All 3088 and D.B. Kausar Vs. State of
U.P. and others: 2023 SCC Online Allahabad 178. He has also placed reliance upon an interim
order dated 07.05.2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 12962 (M/S) of 2019: Smt.
Suresh Kumari Jaiswal versus Prescribed Authority and others, which was followed in the
order dated 20.05.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 14295 (M/S) of 2019: Laxmi Chand Gupta
versus Prescribed Authority.

22. Sri. Mohd. Arif Khan, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite party
nos.4 and 5, has submitted that earlier the petitioner and her husband had filed Writ-C No. 1726 of
2024 challenging an order dated 04.01.2024 and seeking a direction for decision on the application
dated 01.02.2023 under Section 7-A read with Section 10 of RBO Act, which was disposed off by
means of an order dated 21.02.2024, wherein it is recorded as follows: -
522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 "....
 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the matter up to some length has
confined his relief only for suitable direction to the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Sadar, Pratapgarh to pass necessary orders in accordance with law and conclude the
proceedings initiated as per notice issued to respondent no. 4 on 02.01.2024.

 6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent no. 4 on the other hand submits
that even if after spot inspection some portion of the building was found to have exceeded the
sanctioned map, then also there are sufficient powers of compounding such minor deviations from
the sanctioned map and in this regard he has also given an application for compounding which is
under consideration which would be considered by the competent authority.

 7. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties present writ petition is disposed of
with direction to the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Pratapgarh to
conclude the proceedings initiated by him by issuance of notice under Section 10 to respondent no.
4 expeditiously in accordance with law. While hearing respondent no. 4 he shall also give
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also consider the application for compounding
submitted by respondent no. 4. In case no such application is filed by respondent no. 4 till date,
liberty is granted to him to file the same within next ten days.

 8. Let the proceedings be concluded expeditiously, say within six weeks from the date of
production of certified copy of this order before the Prescribed Authority."

23. The learned Counsel for the opposite party nos. 4 and 5 has submitted that after the
learned counsel for the petitioner had elected to seek a direction for conclusion of proceedings
under Section 10 of the RBO Act and he had dropped the prayer for action under Section 7-A of
RBO Act, no writ petition would lie for the same prayer again and the petitioner cannot press for
action against the opposite party no.4 under Section 7-A of the Act.

24. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 has placed reliance on the judgments in
the cases of Babubhai Muljibhai Patel Vs. Nandlal Khodidas Barot and others: AIR 1974
Supreme Court 2105 = (1974) 2 SCC 706, Commissioner of Endowments and Others Vs. Vittal
Rao and Others: (2005) 4 SCC 120 and Sucha Singh Lodhi (dead) through LRs Vs. Baldev
Raj Walia and another: (2018) 6 SCC 733.

25. On the basis of written instructions provided by the Prescribed Authority, Regulated
Area/SDM, Sadar Pratapgarh, Sri Rahul Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh has submitted that in the order dated 21.10.2024
passed by this court in Writ C-No.1726 of 2024 a direction was issued for concluding the
proceedings under Section 10 of the RBO Act only and the proceedings under section 7-A have
been dropped for this reason.

26. Section 7-A of the RBO Act provides as follows: -
3 All. Smt. Vandana Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
523
 "7-A. Cancellation of permission obtained under fraud.-If at any time after a
permission has been granted under sub-section (2) of Section 7, the Prescribed Authority is
satisfied that such Permission was granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation made
or any fraudulent statement or information furnished, the Prescribed Authority may cancel such
permission, for reasons to be recorded in writing and any work done there under shall be deemed
to have been done without such permission.

27. Section 10 of the RBO Act provides as follows: -

 "10. Order of demolition of buildings in certain cases._ (1) Where the erection or reerection of or material change in any building has been commenced or is being carried on or has
been completed in contravention of any regulation made under this Act or without the permission
referred to in Section 6 or in contravention of any condition subject to which such permission has
been granted, the Prescribed Authority may, without prejudice to the provision of Section 9 make
an order directing that such erection, re-erection or material change in shall be demolished by the
owner thereof within such period not exceeding two months as may be specified in the order, and
on the failure of the owner to comply with the order the Prescribed Authority may itself through the
local authority concerned or through such other agency as it thinks fit cause the erection, reerection or material change in to be demolished and the expenses of such demolition shall be
recoverable from the owner in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue:

 Provided that no such order shall be made unless the owner has been given an
opportunity of being heard.

 (2) If the prescribed authority is satisfied that the erection or re-erection of any building
or the execution of any such work as is referred to in Section 6 has been unlawfully commenced or
is being unlawfully carried on, it may by written notice require the person directing or carrying on
such erection or re-erection or execution, to stop the same forthwith and on his failure to do so
cause the carrying on of such erection or re-erection or execution to be stopped and use or employ
such reasonable force as may be necessary therefor."

28. A bare perusal of the aforesaid statutory provisions makes it manifest that Section 7-A
applies to cases where sanction of a building plan has been granted in consequence of any material
misrepresentation made or any fraudulent statement or information furnished, whereas Section 10
operates where the construction has been raised in contravention of any regulation made under the
RBO Act or without the permission referred to in Section 6 of the Act or in contravention of any
condition subject to which such permission has been granted. Both the provisions apply to different
situations. Both the aforesaid provisions are not mutually exclusive in the sense that institution of
proceedings under one provision would bar institution or continuance of proceedings under the
other provision.

29. In the present case, from the documents available before this court at this stage it
appears that the sale deed obtained by the opposite party no.4 in respect of the property in question
mentions the following boundaries of the land in question:
524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 "East - Part of land bearing Gata No.796

 West - 8 feet wide Kachcha passage;

 North - House of Satish Sharma; and

 South - Gallery."

30. However, in the application for sanction of a building plan the opposite party no. 4 has
stated that the boundaries of the property mentioned in the registered sale deed are as follows: -

 "East - House of Majid Ahmed;

 West - 12 feet wide passage;

 North - 43 feet wide road;

 South - Naazma Begum. "

31. The aforesaid statement made by the opposite party no.4 in the application for sanction
of a building plan and the affidavit filed in support thereof is false. This prima facie indicates that
the sanction of building plans have been granted to the opposite party no. 4 in consequence of a
material misrepresentation made regarding boundaries of the land on which the construction was
sanctioned.

32. In the inspection report dated 05.12.2024, submitted by the two-member committee, it
has come to light that in the application dated 04.10.2024 the width of the passage was stated to be
six feet and in the application dated 22.07.2024 the width of the passage is mentioned to be 12 feet
whereas there is no passage in existence. This also prima facie establishes that the building plan
was sanctioned in consequence of a material misrepresentation made or a fraudulent statement or
information furnished by the opposite party no. 4, which would warrant initiation of proceedings
under Section 7-A against her.

33. Moreover, the inquiry report has revealed that the building plan submitted by the
opposite party no. 4 showed that the minimum prescribed set-backs were not there in the proposed
building plan and yet the building plans were sanctioned in violation of the provisions of the
building bye-laws, which prima facie shows an illegality committed by the officials in connivance
with the opposite party no. 4 and which would amount to playing a fraud upon the authority.

34. In Mrs. G.S.J. Shapoorjee Vs. Allahabad Development Authority: 2016 (11) ADJ
524 (DB) = 2016 SCC OnLine All 3088, a Division Bench of this Court held that: -

 "49. Fraud vitiates everything. If orders obtained by petitioners are result of a fraud or
misrepresentation and this Court finds so, it is bound to set at naught the effect of such orders
3 All. Smt. Vandana Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
525
which are result of a fraud and misrepresentation of a party, otherwise this Court shall be failing
in its duty of judicial review giving substantial justice to the parties.

* * *

 75. This Court finds no provision under the Act, 1973 which entitles the Authority to go
for profiteering on an illegal act of encroachment or unauthorized construction in the name of
compounding. The compounding contemplated in section 32 is in respect of offences punishable
under the Act. It nowhere provides that once an offence is compounded, an act, which is in
violation of Plan, shall also stand regularized or become valid. The effect of compounding is
provided in sub-section (2) of section 32 that an offender, if in custody, shall be discharged and no
further proceedings shall be taken against him in respect to the "offence" compounded. This is with
regard to the criminal liability fastened upon the person for committing an offence under the Act,
1973. But the prohibition contained in the Act and statutory obligation upon Authorities to set right
a person who has faulted/breached such provision by taking appropriate action, e.g. demolition of
building by exercising power under section 27 has not been made inoperated when an offence is
compounded. The proceeding prevented as a result of compounding an "offence" relates to offence
and illegality/irregularity so prohibited/controlled is under another provision. It may also be
noticed that by Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development (Amendment) Act, 1997 (Act No.
3 of 1997) (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1997"), certain other offences have been provided vide
sections 26-D and 28-A. However, removal of any raised construction in contravention of Plan and
removal of encroachment etc. are governed by a different procedure and steps which would remain
unaffected by such compounding. In other words, the compounding under the Act, 1973 is to avoid
the criminal liability and punishment on conviction but not to regularize a construction prohibited
under the Act for which no relaxation is permissible except when the plan is amended in
accordance with section 13 of the Act.

 76. We are informed that ADA has passed a resolution to allow unauthorized
construction to continue after payment of some amount called as "compounding fee" and the same
has been decided by some resolution passed by the said Authority.

 77. We are of the view that in the garb of compounding, a resolution of authority or
Development Authority itself will not cure the patent defect going to the root of the matter and an
illegality will not stand cured and legal with the consent of ADA, since, the statute provides a
particular procedure and nothing can be done in a manner other than the procedure prescribed in
the statute.

 78. When law requires something to be done in a particular manner, things done
otherwise are prohibited. This principle was recognized in Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor: AIR
1936 PC 253 and, thereafter it has been reiterated and followed consistently by the Apex Court in a
catena of judgments, which I do not propose to refer all but would like to refer a few recent one.

* * *
526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 87. This Court is of the view that a perusal of Act, 1973 shows that except those cases
which are covered by proviso to section 16, there is a complete embargo against deviation from a
plan. The use of land or building which is not in conformity with such plan is totally prohibited. It
is also a criminal offence under section 26 of Act, 1973. In fact when there is a case of unlawful
encroachment or obstruction, even those who are responsible for preventing such encroachment or
obstruction, if failed to do so, are also liable for criminal prosecution and punishment under
section 26D of Act, 1973. Section 32 providing composition of offences is only in respect to
criminal liability but not to retain contravention of plan which is prohibited by section 16. That
contravention if continues will have to face legal consequences. The only saving clause one can
read is section 13 whereby a change in plan can be approved by State Government and if that has
been done the situation may be different, otherwise the embargo is complete."

35. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in D.B. Kausar Vs. State of U.P. and
others: 2023 SCC Online Allahabad 178.

36. The learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 4 has objected against the locus standi
of the petitioner to object against the constructions raised by the opposite party no. 4. Replying to
this objection, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an interim order dated
07.05.2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 12962 (M/S) of 2019: Smt. Suresh Kumari
Jaiswal versus Prescribed Authority and others, which was followed in the order dated
20.05.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 14295 (M/S) of 2019: Laxmi Chand Gupta versus
Prescribed Authority, wherein this Court has observed that: -

 "On the question of locus, this court is of the view that if there is transgression of the Act
1958 and illegal construction has been made contrary to the map sanctioned under section 6 read
with section 7, then any resident of the area can be a person aggrieved and is entitled to approach
the authorities informing them about the illegal construction(s)."

37. I am also of the considered view that obtaining sanction of building bye-laws in
violation of building bye-laws, by making false representations relating to material particulars and
by playing fraud, would adversely affect the planned development of the locality and it would
affect the public at large. If such fraudulent acts come to the knowledge of the authorities, they
cannot refuse to take appropriate action in accordance with law on the pretext that the petitioner
had earlier no pressed the demand of action under the law. Moreover, when such a conduct comes
to knowledge of the Courts, the Courts cannot shut their eyes and chose to ignore the illegalities.
The Courts role is larger than mere protection of the rights of the parties. The Courts have to act
as guardian of the Rule of Law. Therefore, I find no force in the objection raised by the learned
Counsel for the opposite party no. 4 regarding locus of the petitioner.

38. In Babubhai Muljibhai Patel (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the view
taken by the High Court to refrain from deciding the disputed questions of facts. I do not propose to
record my findings of any disputed question of fact and I am only examining the correctness of the
decision dropping proceedings under Section 7-A of the RBO Act on the sole ground that in the
order 21.02.2024 passed in dated Writ-C No. 1726 of 2024, this Court has directed to conclude the
3 All. Smt. Vandana Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
527
proceedings under Section 10 of the RBO Act only. I am examining the legality of this ground
only, leaving the questions of facts to be decided by the Prescribed Authority.

39. In Sucha Singh Lodhi (dead) through LRs Vs. Baldev Raj Walia and another:
(2018) 6 SCC 733, the Honble Supreme Court held that: -

 "24. It is clear from the reading of Order 2 Rule 2(1) of the Code that whenever the
plaintiff files a suit on the basis of a cause of action pleaded in the plaint, he is under a legal
obligation to include and claim all the reliefs against the defendant, which have accrued to him on
the cause of action pleaded by him in his plaint. In other words, if on the basis of cause of action
pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint, he is entitled to claim two reliefs, namely, A and B
against the defendant(s), then he is under an obligation to claim both A and B reliefs
together in the suit. Order 2 Rule 2(1) of the Code enables the plaintiff to relinquish any portion of
his relief with a view to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any court.

 25. Order 2 Rule 2(2) of the Code, however, provides that where a plaintiff omits to sue
or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim/relief in his suit, then in such event, he shall
not be allowed afterwards to sue in respect of the claim/relief so omitted or/and relinquished by
him in his suit. In other words Rule 2(2) does not permit the plaintiff to file second suit to claim the
omitted or/and relinquished relief.

 26. In our opinion, the sine qua non for invoking Order 2 Rule 2(2) against the plaintiff
by the defendant is that the relief which the plaintiff has claimed in the second suit was also
available to the plaintiff for being claimed in the previous suit on the causes of action pleaded in
the previous suit against the defendant and yet not claimed by the plaintiff."

40. Here the question involved is not limited to enforcement of any legal right of the
petitioner, the question is regarding legality of the dropping of the proceedings under Section 7-A
of the RBO Act when the record prima facie indicates that the said proceedings are warranted.
Therefore, Order II Rule 2, C.P.C. would not come into play in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.

41. In Commissioner of Endowments and Others Vs. Vittal Rao and Others: (2005) 4
SCC 120, the Honble Supreme Court has held as under:

 "17. The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
has jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders. Such power can neither be controlled nor affected by
the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. It would not be correct to say that the terms of Order 23
Rule 3 should be mandatorily complied with while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Otherwise an anomalous situation would arise such as before disposing of the writ
petition, issue should be framed or evidence should be recorded, etc. Proceedings under Article
226 of the Constitution stand on a different footing when compared to the proceedings in suits or
appeals arising therefrom."

The aforesaid proposition of law does not apply to the controversy being adjudicated by this order.
528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
42. The only ground pressed for dropping the proceedings under Section 7-A of the RBO Act is that
in the order dated 21.02.2024, this Court had directed for conclusion of proceedings under Section 10 only
and, therefore, the proceedings under Section 7-A cannot be taken against the opposite party no.4. I am
unable to accept this ground for dropping the proceedings under Section 7-A, firstly, on the ground that the
petitioner had not surrendered or foregone her claim for action under Section 7-A of the Act against the
opposite party no.4. The petitioner had sought a direction for conclusion of proceedings initiated by a notice
dated 02.01.2024. The notice dated 02.01.2024 is not available on the record and it cannot be ascertained that
the said notice did not make a mention of Section 7-A of the Act. Therefore, the doctrine of election does not
apply to the present case. Secondly, the order dated 21.02.2024 does not record that this court had prohibited
action under Section 7-A of the RBO Act or had condoned the fraud played by the opposite party no. 4, if
any, while submitting the applications for sanction of the building plans. Therefore, the order dated
21.02.2024 does not amount to a direction for closure of proceedings against the opposite party no.4 under
Section 7-A of the Act. Thirdly, even if the petitioner has no right to demand initiation of proceedings under
Section 7-A of the RBO Act against the opposite party no. 4, the initiation of such proceedings is not
dependent upon the petitioner's right to claim initiation of the proceedings.

43. When the inquiry report dated 06.02.2024 prima facie indicates that the sanction for building has
been obtained by making a false statement and misrepresentation regarding boundaries of the land, which
amounts to playing a fraud upon the authority, proceedings under Section 7-A of the RBO Act have to be
initiated irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner has a right to press for initiation of the proceedings or
not. Therefore, the order dropping proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act is unsustainable in law and the
same is liable to be set aside.

44. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is allowed.