Disposed¶22

Bhagirath v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2026WRIC/10077/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GNIDA lease back policy; allotment dated 06.09.2012, Serial No. 11; possession not delivered; lease deed not executed; non-availability of developed land; application dated 15/01/2025 before respondent no.-4; Khasra No. 424, Village Itahara, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Buddh Nagar; mandamus; writ petition disposed with direction to execute lease deed within four months; alternative plot if impediment exists.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent – GNIDA to ensure delivery of possession and execution of the lease deed in favour of the petitioner within four months from presentation of a certified copy of the order, provided no other impediment exists; if any impediment exists, GNIDA may consider allotting an alternative plot. ¶22

Bhagirath vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether a mandamus should be issued directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's application dated 15/01/2025 and to grant the lease of Khasra No. 424 (0.085 hectares) allotted under the lease back policy, and to deliver possession and execute the lease deed. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

It is undisputed that allotment in favour of the petitioner under the lease back policy was made on 06.09.2012, the order of that date reflecting his name at Serial No. 11.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Despite the 2012 allotment, neither possession has been delivered nor the lease deed executed by GNIDA, and such inaction on the part of the authority cannot be permitted to continue indefinitely.

¶21

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent – GNIDA to ensure delivery of possession and execution of the lease deed in favour of the petitioner within four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order, provided there exists no other impediment.ratio¶22
If any impediment exists in executing the lease deed with respect to the allotted plot, GNIDA may consider allotting an alternative plot to the petitioner.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Petitioner Bhagirath, whose land was acquired under the lease back policy of the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) and whose name appeared at Serial No. 11 of GNIDA's order dated 06.09.2012, sought a mandamus to decide his application dated 15/01/2025, to grant lease of Khasra No. 424 (0.085 hectares, Khata No. 00062, Village Itahara, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Buddh Nagar), and to protect his possession over the plot. GNIDA acknowledged his rights under the policy but stated the lease deed could not be executed for want of developed land. The Division Bench (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Kunal Ravi Singh, JJ.) held the allotment undisputed and that GNIDA's inaction could not continue indefinitely, and disposed of the writ petition directing GNIDA to deliver possession and execute the lease deed within four months of presentation of a certified copy of the order, or, if any impediment exists, to consider allotting an alternative plot. Decided March 18, 2026.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10077 of 2026

Bhagirath

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ajay Singh Yadav, Yatindra .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 21

¶9

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

¶10

Heard Shri Yatindra along with Shri Ajay Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mrs. Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel for respondent - Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA).

¶11

The instant writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following relief:

¶12

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and decide the application dated 15/01/2025 (Annexure No.-5 to the writ petition), submitted by the petitioner before the respondent no.-4 and grant the lease of Khasra No. 424 to the extent of area 0.085 hectares recorded over the Khata No. 00062 in the revenue records related to the Village-Itahara, Tehsil-Dadri, District-Gautam Buddh Nagar.

¶13

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to create any disturbance in the peaceful possession of petitioner over the plot in question and not to demolish his Pakka house existing over the same before deciding the said application dated 15/01/2025 submitted by the petitioner before the

¶14

WRIC No. 10077 of 2026

¶15

¶16

respondent no.-4.

¶17

(iii) Issue any other suitable writ, orders or directions, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶18

(iv) Award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner."

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a resident of Village Itahara, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar, and his land was acquired under the lease back policy of the respondent – GNIDA. It is submitted that the rights of the petitioner were duly considered by GNIDA on 06.09.2012 for allotment under the said policy, wherein the petitioner’s name finds place at Serial No. 11. It is further contended that despite the allotment having been made in the year 2012, the rightful claim of the petitioner has not been honoured till date, and neither possession has been handed over nor the lease deed executed, compelling the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶20

Per contra, Mrs. Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel for the respondent – GNIDA, submits that although certain rights of the petitioner were acknowledged under the lease back policy, the lease deed could not be executed on account of non-availability of developed land. She further prays for some time to obtain detailed instructions in the matter.

¶21

Considering the factual matrix of the case, and in view of the order dated 06.09.2012, which clearly reflects the petitioner’s name at Serial No. 11, it is undisputed that allotment in favour of the petitioner was made on the said date. However, till date, neither possession has been delivered nor the lease deed executed by the respondent – GNIDA. Such inaction on the part of the authority cannot be permitted to continue indefinitely.

¶22

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent – GNIDA to ensure delivery of possession and execution of the lease deed in favour of the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, provided there exists no other impediment. In case any

¶23

WRIC No. 10077 of 2026

¶24

¶25

impediment exists in executing the lease deed with respect to the allotted plot, the respondent – GNIDA may consider allotting an alternative plot to the petitioner.

¶26

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

¶27

March 18, 2026 NLY

¶28

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

Bhagirath v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagirath v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Similar cases

Vishal Bagla Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

The Nagrik Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd. Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and Others

Deepak Kumar Mangal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mohd. Aslam Ansari vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Factory Owners Association and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Monu Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others