HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 34161 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Shri Rajiv Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1 and 3 and Shri A. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the Prayagraj Development Authority. 2. The instant writ petition is preferred seeking following reliefs:- "i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quash all the notices dated 28.8.2025 issued by the respondent no.5 (Annexure No.2) collectively and may be pleased to pass further order and direct the respondents not to take any coercive measures against the petitioners. ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to evacuate/dispossess or demolish the houses of the petitioners, which is constructed with the aids of the Government and is the sole residence of the petitioners except according to law." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners belong to weaker section of the society. It is claimed that under the Prime Minister Awas Scheme, certain amount had also been paid to the petitioners to construct small dwelling units and they have constructed their dwelling units on the land in question. He submits that without any rehabilitation, they may not be uprooted from their dwelling units. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon Section 26-A(4) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (in short, Act, 1973), which provides that if a member of weaker section has made an encroachment, he shall not be Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajiv Shukla, Ravendra Pratap Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vibhu Rai Smt. Lalxmi Devi And 15 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) removed unless an alternative place is allotted to him. They have been served with the impugned notices dated 28.8.2025 to vacate the land in question and as such, this Court should come for rescue and reprieve the petitioners. 4. Per contra, Shri A. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent authority has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that the land in dispute is the Government land. The petitioners' dwelling units are unauthorized construction, hence the impugned notices dated 28.8.2025 do not suffer from any illegality. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Section 26A of the Act, 1973 deals with the situation of encroachment or obstruction on public land. Proviso to Section 26A (4) of the Act, 1973 provides that any encroachment made on public land by a person belonging to weaker section on or before the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development (Amendment) Act, 1997 shall not be removed until alternative land or accommodation is offered to rehabilitate him in such manner and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. Section 26-A (4) of the Act, 1973 reads thus: "26-A(4) If there are grounds to believe that a person has made any encroachment or obstruction on a land in a development area which is not a private property, the Authority or an Officer authorised by it in this behalf may serve upon the person making encroachment or obstruction, a notice requiring him to show cause why he shall not be required to remove the encroachment or obstruction within such period not being less than fifteen days as may be specified in the notice, and after considering the cause, if any, shown by such person, may order removal of such encroachment or obstruction for reasons to be recorded in writing." 7. A careful reading of the aforesaid Section clearly indicates that the intention of legislature is that a person belonging to weaker section who is found to have encroached the land of the State, cannot be thrown out depriving him of his livelihood unless the State provides him an alternative place. It is the duty of the competent authority to consider the matter in proper perspective. WRIC No. 34161 of 2025 2 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and with the consent, the writ petition stands disposed of with observation that in case the petitioner files reply to the impugned notices within two weeks from today, the same would be considered by the respondent authority strictly in accordance with law in further ten weeks, after affording opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders in the matter. 9. For a period of three months from today, the respondents are restrained to dispossess the petitioners from the land in question. September 25, 2025 RKP WRIC No. 34161 of 2025 3 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad