HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 9993 of 2024 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.C. Saxena, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri J.N. Maurya, learned counsel for the Development Authority. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred praying inter alia for following relief :- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Authorities to ensure the respondent-payment of compensation/ award for the land belongs to the petitioners bearing Khasra Nos. 107, 126, 131, 141, 23 and 19 situated in Village-Inayatpur and Khasra Nos.57, 74 and 250 situated in Village-Sadat Nagar Ikala, Tehsil and District-Ghaziabad as per new Act, 2013, which is under the DPR scheme or de- notified the land in question, which is under the clutch of DPR for the sake of Hi-Tech Township City, Ghaziabad. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the Objection filed by the petitioners dated 11.11.2023, which is pending before them." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, the petitioner had invoked the writ jurisdiction by preferring a petition having Writ C Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Dubey, Prabha Shanker Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Jagannath Maurya, Ravi Prakash Pandey Sukhveer And 4 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) No. 5673 of 2020, "Jagveer Singh and 5 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others" wherein order dated 02.12.2019 passed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority through its Vice Chairman was challenged and further prayer was made for a direction to the respondent Authority to permit the petitioners to develop their lands according to their own free will and make free land of the petitioner from the notification/planning of the Hi-Tech city. The Division Bench vide order dated 17.02.2020 had disposed of the said petition and had accorded leave to the petitioners to move a fresh application before the Authority for redressal of their grievances. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this backdrop, submits that the objection of the petitioners and other farmers were not considered by the respondent Authority and in fact, the same has been rejected simply on the ground that it was not be preferred for challenging the D.P.R./map (talpat manchitra) of the project. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though in the similar circumstances, various orders had been passed but for either one reason or the other, the claim of the petitioners till date has not been redressed. Even the developer has also approached to the State Government for redressal of his grievance. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the first petitioner is suffering from cancer but till date, respondents have neither allowed the petitioners to utilize their holdings nor they have permitted to carry out any development over the property in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners in this backdrop submits that the first petitioner had approached to the Apex Court for redressal of his grievance and considering the ailment of first petitioner, a direction was issued for deciding the matter expeditiously. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the right, title and claim of the petitioners cannot be denied merely on the ground that under some policy of Hi-Tech City, the rights have been conferred in favour of the developer. He further submits that the grievance of the petitioners must be examined by the Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Planning Department, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow as the petitioners are having right to press the relief before the Revisional Authority under Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. 5. Considering the relief as prayed for, we expect that some decision is to WRIC No. 9993 of 2024 2 be taken by the first respondent expeditiously preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. We also direct the Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority to ensure that all the comments must be sent within three weeks to the Revisional Authority in order to facilitate the parties. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. March 23, 2026 Sumit S WRIC No. 9993 of 2024 3 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad