Disposed¶18

Swapnil Prakash v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 May 2026WRIC/7796/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

YEIDA; Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority; Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act 1976; Section 10 notice; demolition; peaceful possession; mandamus; maintainability; premature; representation dated 24.10.2025; Khasara No. 258; Amipur Bangar; Sikandrabad; Bulandshahr; writ petition disposed

What did the court decide?

Considering the factual situation and the claim set up by the petitioner, the Division Bench was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. ¶17

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 7796 of 2026

Swapnil Prakash

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Sanjay Kumar Mishra : C.S.C., Vinayak Nath Singh

¶9

Court No. - 21

¶10

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

¶11

Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Uttarra Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents; and Shri Vinayak Nath Singh, Advocate, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 3, the Chief Executive Officer, Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar (for short, "Authority").

¶12

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

¶13

"(i) to issue a writ of mandamus command the respondents forthwith to not interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner's house which is situated in part of total area of 0.8210 hectare of the Khasara No. 258 Khata no. 257 Khata no. 8 situated at village Amipur Bangar. Tehsil Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr till the disposal of representation dated 24.10.2025 respondent No. 3 Chief Executive Officer, Yamuna Expressway, Industrial Development Authority. "

¶14

At the very outset, learned counsel for the contesting-respondents has raised an objection qua the maintainability of the instant proceeding on the ground that the proceedings have yet to be finalized and, as such, the same is premature. He further submits that the Authority has been constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act 1976, and in case the Authority proceeds to carry out demolition proceedings, a notice under Section 10 of the Act shall be served upon the petitioner.

¶15

WRIC No. 7796 of 2026

¶16

¶17

Considering the factual situation and the claim as set up by the petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, it is observed that the Authority shall be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶18

The writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶19

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

¶20

May 7, 2026

¶21

A.K.Srivastava

¶22

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

Swapnil Prakash v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swapnil Prakash v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harish Chandra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Chhatar Pal Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Adityaagarwal and 22 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Harish Chandra and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kanpur Colonisers Private Limited vs State of Up and 5 Others

Brahm Singh and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others