Anil Kumar and Another vs State of Up and 6 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 40352 of 2025

¶3

Anil Kumar And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus State Of Up And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C., Tejasvi Misra

¶6

Court No. - 29

¶7

HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

¶8

Heard Shri Rajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1, 5 & 6; Mrs. Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel for Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (respondent nos.2 & 3) and Shri Tejasvi Misra, learned counsel for Bulandshahr Development Authority (respondent no.4).

¶9

The instant writ petition is preferred seeking following reliefs:-

¶10

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and quashing the order dated 05.12.2023 and entire proceedings of Case No.BLDA/ANI/20230000782 (Bulandshahar Development Authority vs. Anil) pending in the Court of respondent no.4 and not to demolish house, shop and cattle shed, and other buildings over the plot no.567 situated at Beel, Akbarpur, Tehsil Dadri District Gautam Buddh nagar.

¶11

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in peaceful possession of house, shop and cattle shed, and other buildings over the plot no.567 situated at Beel, Akbarpur, Tehsil Dadri District Gautam Buddh Nagar."

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that till date the proceeding under U.P. Urban Planing and Development Act, 1973 (in short, Act, 1973) has not been finalized and the details have also been given in the writ petition. He submits that the direction be issued to the respondents

¶13

WRIC No. 40352 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

not to proceed except in accordance with law.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondents resisted the relief on the premise that the land in question falls in the territorial jurisdiction of Bulandshahar Development Authority. On the spot, without any sanction of map, the petitioners had carried out certain development activity, which is contrary to the Act, 1973 and the Building Bye-laws prepared by the authority and accordingly, notices under Sections 26, 27 & 28 of the Act, 1973 had been issued to the petitioners. He submits that till date, no objection/reply had been filed by the petitioners as to under what circumstances the petitioners had carried out the development works in the territorial jurisdiction of the authority, which is established to ensure the development in the urban area strictly as per Master Plan/Zone Plan.

¶17

Considering the factual situation, at this stage we are not inclined to keep the matter pending consideration.

¶18

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition stands disposed of with observation that in case the petitioners file detailed objection to the impugned notice dated 05.12.2023 within two weeks from today, we hope and trust that the same shall be considered by the respondent authority strictly in accordance with law.

¶19

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) December 16, 2025

¶20

RKP

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil Kumar and Another v. State of Up and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar and Another v. State of Up and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dujendar Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandrapal vs State of Up

Veerpal Singh and 4 Others vs State of Up

Devideen vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mustakeem and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rakeshri vs State of U.P. and Another