Disposed¶16

Surendra and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 May 2026WRIC/16423/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GNIDA; 6% developed abadi land allotment in lieu of acquired land; Village Tussiyana, Tehsil and District Gautam Buddh Nagar; Khasra Nos. 288, 290, 291(Ka), 359, 365; Khata Nos. 44 and 179; mandamus; relief not amenable under the Scheme; factual enquiry; fresh representation; reasoned and speaking order; writ disposed of without entering merits; WRIT - C No. 16423 of 2026; decided May 6, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without entering into merits; petitioners to file a fresh representation within two weeks and the respondent authority (GNIDA) to decide it expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a further period of six weeks. ¶16

Surendra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus directing GNIDA to consider their claim for allotment of 6% developed abadi land in lieu of their acquired land in Village Tussiyana, Tehsil and District Gautam Buddh Nagar, notwithstanding GNIDA's objection that the relief prayed for is not amenable under the Scheme in question.

¶10

Court's answer

The issue raised in the writ petition requires a factual enquiry, and the Court declined to enter into the merits of the case.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners were directed to file a fresh representation before the respondent authority within two weeks along with a copy of the order.

¶12

Key takeaways

The respondent authority is under an obligation to take an expeditious decision on the representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a further period of six weeks.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court disposed of a writ petition in which the petitioners (Surendra and 4 others) sought a mandamus directing the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA), Gautam Buddh Nagar, to consider their claim for allotment of 6% developed abadi land in lieu of their acquired land comprising Khasra Nos. 288, 290, 291(Ka), 359 and 365 of Khata Nos. 44 and 179, Village Tussiyana, Tehsil and District Gautam Buddh Nagar. GNIDA opposed, submitting that the relief prayed for was not amenable under the Scheme in question. Holding that the issue required a factual enquiry, the Court declined to enter into the merits and disposed of the petition, directing the petitioners to file a fresh representation within two weeks and obliging the respondent authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a further period of six weeks.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 16423 of 2026

¶3

Surendra And 4 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 2 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Raghubir Singh, Rakesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 21

¶8

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

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents and Ms. Ishita Sand holding brief of Ms. Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel for Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (in short "GNIDA").

¶10

The instant writ petition has been preferred seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent - Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Buddh Nagar, to consider the claim of the petitioners for allotment of 6% developed abadi land in lieu of their acquired land, comprising Khasra No. 288 admeasuring 1.0750 hectare and Khasra No. 290 admeasuring 0.1640 hectare of Khata No. 44, and Khasra No. 291 (Ka) admeasuring 0.6960 hectare, Khasra No. 359 admeasuring 0.5560 hectare, and Khasra No. 365 admeasuring 0.3410 hectare of Khata No. 179, situated in Village Tussiyana, Tehsil and District Gautam Buddh Nagar, within a stipulated period, and to allot the same to the petitioners accordingly.

¶11

Learned counsel for GNIDA has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that the relief, as has been prayed for, is not amenable under the Scheme in question.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the issue raised herein would require a factual enquiry. Without entering into the merits of the case, we direct that the petitioner shall file a fresh representation before the respondent authority within two weeks from today along with a copy of this order and the respondent authority is under

¶13

WRIC No. 16423 of 2026

¶14

¶15

obligation to take an expeditious decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a further period of six weeks.

¶16

The writ petition is disposed of , accordingly.

¶17

May 6, 2026 Mukesh Kr.

¶18

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

¶19

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

Surendra and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Narendra Kumar Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Babita Agarwal Vs State of U.P. & 2 Others

Anil Sharma and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Vikram and 26 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Omwati vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rakesh Das and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others