Complainant Must Be Heard in LDA Section 27 Case: SC

Complainant Cannot Be Kept Out: Supreme Court Sets Aside Lucknow Development Authority Order in City Montessori School Case

Published: 28 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court set aside an order of 21.10.2026 passed by the Lucknow Development Authority in Section 27 proceedings under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, because City Montessori School, on whose complaint of unauthorised construction the proceedings began, was not heard. A High Court direction to decide independently and impartially never meant that the complainant be kept away, the Court said. Both sides must be heard afresh on a date within one month (paras 4-6).

Key holdings

A direction to consider a matter independently and impartially, uninfluenced by the complainant's actions, does not mean the complainant is kept away from the hearing (para 5).

The Lucknow Development Authority's order of 21.10.2026, passed without hearing CMS, was set aside for fresh consideration (paras 5-6).

The Authority must notify CMS and the fifth respondent, give CMS the fifth respondent's reply and annexures, and serve any inspection report on the parties (para 6).

The notice must fix a date within one month of 27.10.2026; the matter is to be concluded on that date or an adjourned date (para 6).

The Court did not look into the merits; it interfered only for violation of natural justice (paras 5-6).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The order records that of 23,000 sq. ft. owned by two individuals, 6,000 sq. ft. was leased out by the fifth respondent's predecessor and 17,000 sq. ft. by City Montessori School (CMS); an acquisition for CMS was upheld only for its 17,000 sq. ft. (para 4). On CMS's complaint of unauthorised constructions, the Lucknow Development Authority issued a Section 27 notice to the fifth respondent (paras 1, 4). On the fifth respondent's writ petition, the Allahabad High Court called for a detailed response, allowed an inspection by an officer not below Chief Engineer/Additional Secretary rank, and directed independent and impartial consideration uninfluenced by further action at CMS's behest (para 1). The Authority passed an order on 21.10.2026 (para 3).

Court's Findings

The Court declined to touch the merits of the dispute or of the allegation of unauthorised construction (para 5). It read the High Court's direction as requiring only that the Authority consider the issue independently and impartially, without being influenced by any action at the behest of CMS. That did not mean CMS should not be heard, especially when the complaint had been filed on its initiative (para 5). Whether the allegation is valid is left to the Authority's independent and impartial consideration, but it could never have been intended that the complainant be kept away from the proceedings (para 5). Since the order of 21.10.2026 was obviously passed without a hearing to CMS, the Court set it aside, only to facilitate fresh consideration (paras 5-6). It made clear that it had not looked into the merits and had interfered only for violation of the principles of natural justice; the matter is to be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law (para 6). The order cites no decision.

Legal Principle

A direction to decide independently and impartially, uninfluenced by the complainant's further actions, does not exclude the complainant from the hearing. Where Section 27 proceedings under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 began on a complaint, an order passed without hearing the complainant was set aside for violation of natural justice (paras 5-6).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For complainants in development-authority enforcement, this order draws a useful line. A court's direction that the authority decide independently and impartially concerns how the decision is made, not who may take part: where the proceedings began on a complaint, the Supreme Court said the complainant could not have been meant to be kept away (para 5). In practice, a complainant left out can ask for notice, for the other side's reply and annexures, and for any inspection report (para 6). The order decides nothing on whether the construction is unauthorised (para 5). Compare Sanmati Sabha, a Delhi High Court ruling on unauthorised construction.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.