The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday heard a tense and emotionally charged petition filed by Farhat Jahan and her husband, who have accused the Bareilly Development Authority (BDA) of demolishing parts of their residential premises-popularly known as Aiwane-e-Farhat-without following due legal process. Inside Court No. 29, the atmosphere felt unusually heavy as both sides exchanged sharp arguments over whether the demolition was lawful, prompting the bench to intervene with a calibrated middle path.
Background
According to the petitioners, BDA officials initiated demolition based on a 2011 order that they allegedly never received. Their counsel insisted that the family was suddenly confronted with bulldozers at their doorstep, leaving them “no option but to rush to the Supreme Court,” which granted one-week interim protection and directed them to approach the High Court.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Flags Faulty Trap Procedures While Granting Bail to Labour Officer Accused
BDA, however, painted a very different picture. Their senior counsel argued that notices had indeed been served long ago, pointing out that the construction in question was being used as a marriage hall without a sanctioned map. He claimed that several opportunities between May and October 2011 were ignored by the petitioners, leading to a demolition order under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The Authority also noted that in 2018, the petitioners acknowledged operating a marriage hall on the premises but still did not apply for approval or compounding.
Court’s Observations
Listening to both sides, the bench-Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Kunal Ravi Singh-appeared cautious about stepping into disputed factual terrain. At one point, one of the judges remarked, “The dispute involves statutory procedures and remedies; the writ court cannot be the first forum to determine such contested facts.”
Read also:- Supreme Court stays Allahabad High Court order in sensitive POCSO matter, questions absence
The bench repeatedly emphasised that the petitioners still had several statutory options, including seeking compounding for portions that may legally be regularised. A judge noted, “If the law offers a remedy, the petitioners should first exhaust that remedy before seeking extraordinary intervention.”
While the petitioners urged immediate relief, the court made it clear that it would not outright adjudicate the legality of the demolition order from 2011 at this stage. Instead, it stressed the need for a fair, rule-based reconsideration by the BDA itself.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Grills Centre Over Indigo Flight Chaos, Demands Clear Accountability and Swift
Decision
In its final direction, the High Court allowed the petitioners two weeks to file fresh applications under Sections 14 and 15 of the 1973 Act, along with a compounding request for any portion that qualifies. The Court ordered the Vice-Chairman of the BDA to decide these applications within six weeks, strictly as per law and without being influenced by past observations.
Crucially, until these applications are decided, both sides must maintain status quo-meaning no further demolition and no new construction at the site. With these directions, the court disposed of the petition.
Case Title: Farhat Jahan & Another vs. State of U.P. & Others
Case No.: Writ-C No. 43640 of 2025
Case Type: Writ Petition (Mandamus – demolition dispute)
Decision Date: 10 December 2025
