The Court took exception to the "selective action" after facts revealed that the authority targeted a single property while ignoring dozens of similar structures nearby.

"Prima facie, the mala fide at the instance of the Lucknow Development Authority stands established", a Division Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai observed while staying further demolition proceedings till the next date of listing.

Briefly put, the Bench was hearing a writ petition filed by one Kanchan Singh, who challenged the legality of the LDA's 'selective' demolition of his property.

The petitioner contended that the constructions were raised over property purchased by a valid sale deed, and since the area was less than the area prescribed for which maps are required to be sanctioned, no map sanction was obtained from the LDA.

Despite this, the LDA issued him a demolition notice and ultimately passed a final order for demolition against the petitioner on November 30, 2024.

Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the Divisional Commissioner.

It was submitted that even though the respondents had put in their appearance in the appeal and the appeal was actively being heard in terms of the prescriptions contained in the statute, the LDA proceeded to carry out the demolition.

It was contended that executing a demolition under these circumstances was "wholly illegal" and constituted a selective demolition.

The petitioner also produced photographs demonstrating that certain other constructions were made in a similar manner nearby, but they were neither touched nor sealed.

Defending the said action, the LDA argued that the department was justified in its strict stance as the property in question had already been sealed twice. However, despite the sealing of the premises, construction activities were carried out, leading to demolition proceedings against the petitioner.

The LDA's counsel further placed instructions before the Court provided by Devansh Trivedi, Officer on Special Duty (OSD), LDA, who was personally present on-site during the drive.

According to these instructions, notices were issued to as many as 70 persons in the area and on that basis, demolition orders were passed; however, the counsel admitted that no actual demolition was carried out on any of those other properties.

Taking into account these submissions, the Bench remarked that the submissions and satisfaction expressed by the LDA's counsel appeared to be "prima facie only to avoid the real issue that, during the pendency of the appeal, the demolition could not have been carried out, more so as the parties were appearing before the appellate authority."

The bench, prima facie, also noted that the "selective action" had been taken against the petitioner's property and not against other similarly situated properties.

Against this backdrop, opining that the matter requires consideration, the High Court issued an immediate stay on further demolition actions till the next date of listing.

The Court also ordered the Vice Chairman of the Lucknow Development Authority and OSD Devansh Trivedi to file personal affidavits within three weeks.

The officials have to explain "how the selective action is to be taken only in respect of one property and no action has been taken in respect of other properties allegedly in the vicinity, which have been raised without any sanction of the map".

Crucially, the Bench added that on the next date of listing, it will consider taking formal action against OSD Devansh Trivedi under the penal provisions of Section 26-D of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.