Smt Raj Kumari Prasad vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Smt Raj Kumari Prasad vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with consent of parties: the petitioner's application dated 19.03.2026 is to be decided by the concerned Authority strictly in accordance with law, with liberty to the Authority to seek police protection from the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police for removal of encroachment if required.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent no.3 should be directed by mandamus to give the petitioner peaceful possession of Plot no.193, Village Saini, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, free from all encumbrances, and to take necessary measures in that regard. +1 more

Court's answer

It is observed that if police protection is required for removal of encroachment, the Authority may move an appropriate application before the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police, who may proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the petitioner's application dated 19.03.2026 shall be decided by the concerned Authority strictly in accordance with law; no mandamus on merits is issued.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Division Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Kunal Ravi Singh, JJ.) disposed of, with consent of parties, a writ petition by Smt Raj Kumari Prasad seeking mandamus to the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (respondent no.3) for peaceful, encumbrance-free possession of Plot no.193, Village Saini, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, and for decision of her application dated 19.03.2026. The Court observed that the application be decided by the concerned Authority strictly in accordance with law, and that if police protection is required for removal of encroachment, the Authority may apply to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police, who may proceed in accordance with law. Counsel had relied on the Division Bench order dated 05.05.2026 in Writ C No. 37394 of 2025 (Vipin Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. and 2 others).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 18443 of 2026

Smt Raj Kumari Prasad

.....Petitioner(s)

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Mayank Pratap Singh, Nitin Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C.

Court No. - 21

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

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Ms. Ishita Sand, holding brief of Ms. Anjali Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following relief :-

"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent no.3 to ensure of giving peaceful and free from all encumbrances possession of Plot no.193 Village Saini, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar and to take necessary measures in this regard;

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent no.3 to pass suitable orders on the application dated 19.03.2026 ("ANNEXURE NO.5") of the petitioner within some stipulated period of time has may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;"

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the order of Division Bench of this Court dated 05.05.2026 in Writ C No. 37394 of 2025 : Vipin Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. and 2 others. He further submits that similar indulgence may also be extended in favour of the petitioner.

WRIC No. 18443 of 2026

2

Considering the relief as prayed for, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending consideration. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with an observation that the application of the petitioner dated 19.03.2026 be decided by the concerned Authority strictly in accordance with law. Needless to say, in case police protection is required for removal of encroachment, definitely the Authority is at wisdom to move an appropriate application before the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police, who may proceed in accordance with law.

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

May 12, 2026

Sumit S

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad