Allahabad HC Dismisses Writ Against LDA Demolition Order Linked to Lucknow Fire That Killed 15, Directs Owner to File Statutory Appeal

The Lucknow Bench declined to exercise writ jurisdiction over the demolition of a building where 15 persons died in a fire, citing disputed facts and an available statutory appeal under Section 27(2) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, on 24 August 2026 dismissed a writ petition filed by the owner of a building in Aliganj, Lucknow, where a fire on 22 June 2026 killed fifteen young persons. The petitioner, Birendra Prasad Shukla, through his power of attorney holder, sought to quash a demolition order dated 10 July 2026 passed by the Lucknow Development Authority under Section 27(1) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, and a consequential recovery notice of Rs. 26,14,210 issued on 1 August 2026 as the cost of demolition. Justices Rajan Roy and Manjive Shukla held that disputed questions of fact made Article 226 proceedings unsuitable, that a statutory appeal under Section 27(2) of the Act of 1973 remained available, and that the petitioner must avail that remedy within one week.

The Fire, the Building, and the Demolition

The fire occurred on 22 June 2026 in a three-storey building described as a Housing and Animation Center on Usha Mehta Marg, Aliganj, Lucknow. Fifteen young persons died. The map sanctioned for the building was for residential purposes—the bench noted that every floor showed bedrooms and kitchens, and page 48 of the record was explicitly titled “Proposed Residence Plan.” Despite this, the premises was being used commercially at the time of the fire.

The Lucknow Development Authority had previously taken some action: a demolition order for construction in the basement was passed on 10 May 2016 because it was not as per the sanctioned map, but that order was cancelled on 5 July 2016. Construction thereafter also deviated from the sanctioned plan. No action was taken at the appropriate time, a fact the LDA's counsel acknowledged candidly before the bench in an earlier PIL hearing.

Following the fire, the LDA issued a notice to the petitioner on 23 June 2026 in proceedings under Section 27(1) of the Act of 1973. The petitioner filed objections on 8 July 2026. The demolition order was passed on 10 July 2026 and pasted on the premises the same day. A true copy was served on the petitioner on 13 July 2026. The LDA carried out the actual demolition on 25 July 2026.

The Petitioner's Challenges

The petitioner advanced three main arguments before the bench.

First, that the demolition violated Section 27 of the Act of 1973, which, he submitted, requires that an owner be given 15 days from the date of service of the demolition notice to demolish the structure himself. The notice was served on 13 July 2026; demolition was carried out on 25 July 2026, which the petitioner argued was before the 15-day window elapsed. The petitioner also relied on the Supreme Court's directions in In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, reported as 2025 (5) SCC 1, and on a Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Writ-C No. 16357 of 2020, Abbas Ansari and Another v. State of U.P. and Others.

Second, that the building had been sealed following the fire incident, leaving the petitioner without access. Any notice pasted on the sealed premises would not have come to his knowledge, making the pasting on 10 July 2026 ineffective as service.

Third, that the petitioner's right of appeal under Section 27(2) was frustrated because the LDA did not furnish a certified copy of the demolition order. When the petitioner attempted to file an appeal before the Commissioner, the LDA's clerk informed him that a certified copy was required. The petitioner was able to obtain a certified copy only after filing an earlier writ petition, Writ-C No. 7790 of 2026 (Birendra Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. and Others). By then, demolition had already taken place on 25 July 2026.

The petitioner also sought a direction that duly sanctioned portions of the building had been demolished, and that compensation be awarded in terms of the Supreme Court's guidelines in the demolition directions case.

The LDA's Response

Counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority, Shri Ratnesh Chandra, raised a preliminary objection that the demolition order under Section 27(1) of the Act of 1973 was expressly appealable under Section 27(2) and that the writ petition should not be entertained. On the merits, he submitted that the LDA had counted the 15-day period from 10 July 2026, the date the order was pasted on the premises, and that demolition took place only on 25 July 2026 after that period expired.

Counsel also pointed to the petitioner's own pleadings in the earlier writ petition, Writ-C No. 7790 of 2026, where at paragraph 18 the petitioner himself stated that the demolition notice was pasted on the premises on 10 July 2026.

Further, counsel drew the bench's attention to a representation dated 24 July 2026, received at the LDA office on 25 July 2026, in which the petitioner asserted that in pursuance of the notice dated 10 July 2026 he had already started self-demolition of the building but was stopped by the police and the SIT. On the basis of this representation, the LDA argued that the petitioner's complaint of prejudice was untenable: he had himself acknowledged the notice and commenced compliance.

How the Bench Reasoned

The bench identified the core difficulty: multiple disputed questions of fact made summary adjudication under Article 226 inappropriate. Whether the demolition order was served on the petitioner as required by law, whether the 15-day period was correctly calculated from the date of pasting or the date of service, whether the sealing of the building genuinely prevented the petitioner from accessing notices, and whether the appeal right was frustrated by the LDA's failure to furnish a certified copy in time—all of these turned on factual disputes that could not be resolved on affidavits alone.

The bench was also plainly influenced by the conduct background. The building had a residential sanction but was operated commercially. A fire had killed fifteen young persons. The same bench had, in PIL No. 603 of 2026, passed a detailed order on 2 July 2026 cataloguing systemic failures: the LDA had allowed illegal construction to continue after withdrawing its own 2016 demolition order, a commercial electricity connection had been granted on a residential-purpose premises after an NOC from the Director of Electrical Safety, and no fire safety certificate was required for buildings below 15 metres under Section 26 of the U.P. Fire and Emergency Services Act, 2022.

The bench stated that it could have entertained the petition but for those facts and the petitioner's counsel's inability to explain how a commercial establishment came to be run in a building with a residential sanction, leading to deaths. The bench was not expressing a final view on those matters, but they informed the exercise of the court's extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction.

On the statutory appeal, the bench held that even though the building had already been demolished, the appeal could still examine the validity of the demolition order. If the order were found to be illegal, it could be set aside or declared illegal with consequential directions, enabling the petitioner to seek further relief before the appropriate forum against the LDA or any other person.

The bench expressly kept all issues open for the appellate authority: whether the order was served as per law, and if so, whether all prescribed formalities were complied with. It also clarified that its observations in the writ petition would not operate to the prejudice of the petitioner in the appeal.

The PIL on the Lucknow Fire

The writ petition was closely connected to PIL No. 603 of 2026, filed by a practising advocate in public interest following the fire. The same bench had heard that PIL on 2 July 2026 and passed a detailed order raising systemic concerns. The PIL order noted that the Additional Advocate General, appearing for the LDA, had confirmed that the map was sanctioned for residential purposes, that a commercial establishment was being run contrary to the sanctioned plan, and that no action was taken despite the ongoing violation.

The bench in the PIL had directed the State Government to frame a Standard Operating Procedure on fire safety compliance, issuance of NOCs, and fixing responsibility of officers. It had also questioned how buildings under 15 metres were exempt from mandatory fire safety certificates under the U.P. Fire and Emergency Services Act, 2022, and whether an occupancy certificate under Section 26(2) of that Act had been issued for the building in question. The PIL also raised the absence of a consistent compensation policy: in the fire at issue, Rs. 12 lakh per deceased had been paid, which the bench contrasted with compensation as high as Rs. 50 lakh in other incidents.

The PIL was listed for hearing on 4 August 2026, with a member of the Oudh Bar Association appointed as amicus curiae.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed Writ-C No. 9042 of 2026. It permitted the petitioner to file an appeal against the demolition order dated 10 July 2026 under Section 27(2) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 within one week of the order, i.e., by 31 August 2026. The bench directed that if such an appeal is filed within one week, it shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation or delay, shall be decided expeditiously, and all pleas raised by the petitioner shall be considered by the appellate authority. The recovery notice dated 1 August 2026 for Rs. 26,14,210, being consequential to the demolition order, was held to be covered by the same statutory appeal. The bench declined to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 for any of the reliefs claimed in the petition.