Lucknow Fire Incident| Residential Map, Commercial Use, 15 Deaths; Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea Against Demolition

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has dismissed a plea challenging the demolition of a building in Aliganj where 15 people were killed in a fire in June, holding that the owner must first pursue the statutory appellate remedy available under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

A division bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla, in an order passed on August 24, declined any relief in the writ petition filed by Birendra Prasad Shukla, a co-owner of the building, while allowing him to file an appeal against the Lucknow Development Authority’s (LDA) demolition order within a week.

"We could have entertained the petition and proceeded further but for the facts noticed hereinabove and also as the petitioner's Counsel has not been able to satisfy us as to how a commercial building was constructed after getting a residential map sanctioned or how the building was been used for commercial purposes in a manner, as alleged, that when a fire broke out on 22.06.2026 several persons who were in the building at that time got caught in the fire and could not come out, resulting in as many as fifteen deaths of young persons," court held.

Shukla had challenged the July 10 demolition order, the demolition of the building on July 25 and a subsequent demand of ₹26.14 lakh towards the cost of demolition. The LDA had proceeded against the building following the June 22 fire that claimed 15 lives.

The dispute before the high court centred, among other things, on whether the demolition was carried out in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 27 of the 1973 Act.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the building had a sanctioned map for residential use and alleged that the demolition order was not followed by the mandatory 15-day period during which the owner could demolish the structure himself. According to the petitioner, although the July 10 order was served on July 13, the building was demolished on July 25.

The petitioner further claimed that his statutory right of appeal was effectively frustrated because he was initially not provided with a certified copy of the demolition order. He alleged that when an attempt was made to file an appeal before the competent authority, an LDA clerk insisted on a certified copy, which was provided only after he approached the high court.

The LDA, however, disputed these allegations. Its counsel told the court that a notice under Section 27(1) had been issued on June 23, objections were filed by the petitioner on July 8 and the demolition order was passed on July 10. The authority said the order was pasted on the premises and a true copy was served on the petitioner on July 13. It maintained that it waited for 15 days from the date of pasting the order before carrying out the demolition.

The LDA’s case was also that while the building had originally been sanctioned for residential use, a commercial structure had subsequently been constructed and commercial activities were being carried out from the premises.

The high court did not adjudicate on the competing claims at this stage. Instead, it held that the questions raised by the petitioner involved disputed questions of fact and could appropriately be examined in an appeal under Section 27(2) of the 1973 Act.

The bench observed that it would have been preferable if the statutory appeal had been filed before the demolition was carried out. However, whether the petitioner was prevented from filing the appeal because of any lapse on the LDA’s part or because of his own conduct could not be conclusively determined in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Court accordingly permitted Shukla to file the statutory appeal within one week, making it clear that the appeal should not be rejected on the ground of limitation or delay and should be decided expeditiously.

Significantly, court noted that even though the building had already been demolished, the appellate authority could examine the legality of the demolition order. If the order is ultimately found to be illegal, it could be set aside or declared illegal with consequential directions, the bench said.

Court therefore declined to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition, granting leave to the petitioner to pursue further remedies in accordance with law.

Case Title: Birendra Prasad Shukla ,Thru. Power Of Attorney Holder Rajendra Prasad Shukla Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planning, Lko And 4 Others

Order Date: August 24, 2026

Bench: Justices Rajan Roy and Manjive Shukla