Disposed

Gupta Industries a Proprietorship Concern v. Project Director National Highways Authority of India

Uttarakhand HC8 Jul 2026WPMS/1933/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a notice under Section 26(2) of the Control of National Highways (Land & Traffic) Act, 2002 seeking removal of alleged encroachment on NH-07 land, contending no encroachment existed. Court directed the Authorised Officer to decide petitioner's reply within three weeks and restrained dispossession meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Authorised Officer to consider reply and pass order per law within three weeks; interim protection against dispossession for three weeks or till decision, whichever earlier.

Gupta Industries a Proprietorship Concern Vs Project… — Land Acquisition | Uttarakhand HC (2026)

¶1

UKHC010108762026

¶2

2026:UHC:5523

¶3

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			WPMS/1933/2026
			Gupta Industries A Proprietorship Concern --Petitioner Versus Project Director National Highways Authority Of India --Respondent Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Sagar Kothari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Deputy AG, for the State. Mr. Raunak Pant, Advocate, i/b Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for NHAI. (2) According to petitioner, his land ad measuring 390 square meter, situate at Mauja Mazri Grant, District Dehradun was acquired for construction of National Highway in the year 2015 and compensation due to him was paid. Petitioner is now aggrieved by a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of Control of National Highways (Land & Traffic) Act, 2002, whereby petitioner has been asked to remove his encroachment over 10 square meter land situate at K.M. 521 + 120 of N.H. No. 07 at Lal Tappar. Petitioner contends that he has not encroached any part of public land and in the guise of impugned notice, National Highways Authority of India wants to dispossess the petitioner of his bhumidhari land to the extent of 100 square meter. (3) Learned Counsel for National Highways Authority of India, however, submits that petitioner has remedy to submit representation before the Authorised Officer. (4) Learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶4

UKHC010108762026

¶5

2026:UHC:5523

¶6

submits that petitioner has already submitted reply to the notice, but decision thereupon has not been taken so far. (5) Having regard to the facts of the case, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Authorised Officer to consider petitioner’s reply and pass appropriate order, as per law, within three weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. (6) For a period of three weeks or till decision is taken, whichever is earlier, petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 8.7.2026 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.07.08 19:15:47 +05'30'

Gupta Industries a Proprietorship Concern v. Project Director National Highways Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gupta Industries a Proprietorship Concern v. Project Director National Highways Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bsv Inter College Vs District Magistrate/Collector

Hanung Toys and Textiles Ltd. Vs Sushil Kumar

Hanung Toys and Textiles Ltd. Sikandarpur Bhainswal Vs Munnu Singh

Renu Bhandari Vs State of Uttarakhand

Yashwant Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Narendra Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand