Bareilly Banquet Hall Demolition: Allahabad High Court Orders Status Quo

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Bareilly Development Authority to maintain status quo and halt all further demolition at Aiwan-e-Farhat, a residential-cum-hall structure in Bareilly, while permitting the owners to pursue statutory remedies to regularise or compound parts of the construction.

The bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh issued the order while disposing of a writ petition filed by Farhat Jahan and her husband, Sarfaraz Wali Khan, who alleged that the authorities had begun demolition without any notice and in violation of the procedure laid down under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act 1973.

The petitioners had approached the court after the Supreme Court, on 4 December 2025, declined to entertain their Article 32 petition but granted them liberty to move the jurisdictional high court. The apex court had also directed parties to maintain status quo for one week, noting the claim that partial demolition had already taken place and allowing the petitioners to seek urgent listing before the high court.

Before the high court, the petitioners sought a restraint order against further demolition, restoration of the demolished portion or compensation, and an inquiry into the officials allegedly responsible for the action. They said the demolition was carried out under the cloak of a 12 October 2011 order that had never been served on them. They argued that they were deprived of the opportunity to defend the construction under the Act of 1973 or to pursue compounding for portions that were permitted to be regularised under the rules.

The petitioners also told the court that they were willing to take recourse to the remedies under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act and to apply for compounding as per law if given a fair opportunity to do so.

The Bareilly Development Authority opposed the petition. Senior counsel Ashok Mehta, appearing for the Authority, submitted that the petitioners had concealed facts and that notices had indeed been issued to Sarfaraz Wali Khan in 2011 for raising a marriage hall without approval. The Authority stated that repeated opportunities were offered between May and October 2011 but no response was filed, leading to a demolition order under Section 27. It argued that the petitioners neither challenged the order through the statutory appeal under Section 27(2) nor applied for compounding or regularisation at any time.

The Authority also referred to an application filed by Sarfaraz Wali Khan in 2018 acknowledging that he operated a marriage hall named Aiwan-e-Farhat on the premises, though no sanctioned map existed. Despite this, the Authority said, no steps were taken by the petitioner for regularisation.

After hearing both sides, the high court declined to go into the merits of the demolition or the factual disputes raised. It instead granted liberty to the petitioners to file applications under Sections 14 and 15 of the 1973 Act, along with a compounding application in respect of any portion of the structure that is legally capable of being compounded. Court gave the petitioners two weeks to move these applications.

Compounding refers to a statutory mechanism under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act 1973 that allows certain types of unauthorised constructions to be regularised on payment of a prescribed fee. If the deviation from the sanctioned plan is minor and falls within the limits permitted under the rules, the development authority may compound that portion instead of ordering demolition.

Court directed that if such applications are filed within the stipulated time, the Vice-Chairman of the Bareilly Development Authority shall decide them within six weeks in accordance with the building bye-laws, compounding rules and other applicable provisions, after granting the petitioners a full opportunity of hearing.

The bench ordered that status quo be maintained regarding the property until the Authority disposes of the applications and that no further demolition be carried out. The petitioners are restrained from undertaking any development or alteration at the site during this period.

After the September 26 violence near Islamia Grounds in Bareilly during protests over the ‘I Love Muhammad’ controversy, authorities began a drive against what they described as unauthorised structures and violations associated with cleric Tauqeer Raza and his supporters.

Case Title: Farhat Jahan And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Order Date: December 10, 2025

Bench: Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh