Allahabad High Court Orders Status Quo On Demolition Of SP Leader's Bareilly Marriage Hall, Directs BDA To Decide Compounding Plea

A bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh directed the parties to maintain the status quo and granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the Vice-Chairman of the BDA with applications for the regularisation and compounding of the unauthorised construction.

The order comes almost a week after the Supreme Court declined to entertain a writ petition filed under Article 32 by the owners, SP Leader Sarfaraz Wali Khan and his wife Farhat Jahan, but granted them liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

On December 4, the Apex Court, while disposing of the petition, noted that the "demolition exercise has already begun" and that partial demolition had been carried out.

However, the Supreme Court had granted interim protection for one week, directing that the status quo be maintained until December 10, 2025.

When the matter came before the High Court yesterday, Senior Advocate Shashi Nandan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the demolition action was being taken under the 'guise' of an alleged order (dated October 12, 2011) that was never served upon the petitioners.

The petitioners contended that the authorities proceeded directly with demolition without following the procedure prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

The petitioners expressed their willingness to resort to remedies available under the 1973 Act, as they submitted that the specific constructions are compoundable.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Ashok Mehta, representing the BDA, opposed the petition, alleging that the petitioners had concealed material facts. It was submitted that notices were issued under Section 27(1) of the 1973 Act as early as 2011 regarding the construction of a Marriage Hall (Barat Ghar) without a sanctioned map.

It was pointed out that despite being afforded several opportunities between May and October 2011, the petitioners failed to appear or furnish evidence. Consequently, a demolition order was passed on October 12, 2011.

The BDA further argued that, in 2018, petitioner no. 2 admitted to operating the marriage hall "Ehwan-e-Farhat" but claimed that the structure was old and had been purchased under a sale deed dated 1991.

The Authority contended that despite this, no map was ever submitted for approval, nor was any compounding application filed.

The BDA maintained that the 2011 order was appealable under Section 27(2) of the Act, a statutory remedy that the petitioners failed to exhaust.

After considering the rival submissions, the High Court observed that it was not inclined to adjudicate the matter on the merits at this stage, given the disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

However, to ensure the ends of justice, the Court accorded liberty to the petitioners to move appropriate applications under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act of 1973, along with an application for compounding such portion of the construction as may be permissible under the Rules.

The Court also set a strict timeline, directing the petitioners to file such applications before the Vice-Chairman of the Bareilly Development Authority within two weeks.

The Court further directed the Vice-Chairman of the BDA to process these applications strictly in accordance with law and dispose of them within a further period of six weeks from the date of filing.

Crucially, the Court emphasised the need for an unbiased enquiry, stating:

"The entire exercise of consideration and disposal of the applications shall be undertaken independently and objectively by the Development Authority, without being influenced by any observation made in this order."

To protect the subject property during this interim period, the High Court directed that "all parties shall maintain status quo with respect to the property in question and no further demolition shall be carried out" until the disposal of the applications.

Simultaneously, the petitioners have been restrained from carrying out any further development, construction or alteration on the site.

Advocate Waseem Akhtar Khan, Rizwan Ahmad, Amir Kaleem and Mandeep Singh, appeared for the petitioners.

Advocate DS Chauhan, for the respondent–Bareilly Development Authority

Additional Chief Standing Counsel Devesh Vikram, appeared for the Staterespondents.