Disposed¶19

Saurabh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2025WRIC/40625/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: writ petition disposed with directions; fresh representation to Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA); decision by reasoned speaking order within six weeks; delay and laches objection not resulting in rejection; allotment of 6% developed abadi land for acquired land (khasra no. 78M, area 0.341 hec.; khasra no. 84M, area 0.594 hec.), village Bishrakh Jalalpur, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Buddh Nagar; mandamus; land acquisition; representation dated 07/11/2025.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file a fresh representation with the respondent authority within two weeks with a copy of the order; respondent authority directed to decide expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law, preferably within six weeks. No adjudication of the allotment claim on merits.

Saurabh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the respondent's objection that it suffers from delay and laches with no plausible explanation for the inordinate delay in approaching the Court. +2 more

¶14

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and expressly 'without adverting to the merits', the Court did not reject the writ petition on the delay-and-laches maintainability objection; it instead directed the petitioners to file a fresh representation before the respondent authority within two weeks, together with a copy of the order.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The respondent authority shall take an expeditious decision on the matter by passing a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a further period of six weeks.

¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Writ - C No. 40625 of 2025; Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Kunal Ravi Singh, JJ.; decided 01-12-2025) disposed of, without adverting to the merits, a writ petition by Saurabh (and another) seeking mandamus against the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority for (i) allotment of 6% developed abadi land in respect of acquired land comprising khasra nos. 78M (0.341 hec.) and 84M (0.594 hec.), village Bishrakh Jalalpur, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, and (ii) a speaking-order decision on their representation dated 07/11/2025. Despite GNIDA counsel's maintainability objection grounded in delay and laches, the Court directed the petitioners to file a fresh representation within two weeks and required the authority to pass a reasoned, speaking order strictly in accordance with law, preferably within six weeks.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 40625 of 2025

Saurabh And Another

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ramesh Kumar Pandey .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 29

¶9

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

¶10

Heard Shri Ramesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents and Mrs. Anjali Upadhaya, learned counsel for the respondent - Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority.

¶11

This writ petition is preferred for the following principal reliefs:

¶12

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent development authority to allot 6% developed abadi land in favour of the petitioner, in respect of his acquired land bearing khasra no. 78M area 0.341 hec. and khasra no. 84M area 0.594 hec. situated in village Bishrakh Jalalpur, Tehsil: Dadri, District: Gautam Buddh Nagar.

¶13

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent development authority to decide the representation of petitioners dated 07/11/2025 by speaking order within stipulated time as so fixed by this Hon'ble Court (Annexure No.-3) to the writ petition."

¶14

Mrs. Anjali Upadhaya, learned counsel for the respondent – Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, submitting that no plausible explanation has been provided in the writ petition to justify the inordinate delay in approaching this Court

¶15

WRIC No. 40625 of 2025

¶16

¶17

for the reliefs sought.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without adverting to the merits, we direct the petitioners to file a fresh representation before the respondent authority within two weeks from today along with a copy of this order. The respondent authority shall take an expeditious decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a further period of six weeks.

¶19

The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.

¶20

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) December 1, 2025

¶21

NLY

¶22

Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saurabh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rahul Arora vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Farman Illahi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rashid Ali and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahendra and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Mahadev Baba Ent Udhyog vs Union of India and 4 Others

Syed Shazi Ali vs State of U.P. and 2 Others