Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 104772 (ALL)

SUBHASH v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/35702/2025 · 2025-10-12

Kunal Ravi Singh, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 35702 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Akhileshwar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Aditya Bhushan Singhal, learned counsel for Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (in short "YEIDA"). 2. The petitioner has called in question a notice dated 23.09.2025 issued by respondent no.4 and for a restraint order against respondent no.4 so that no interference is caused in the possession of the petitioner over the land in respect of which notice dated 23.09.2025 has been issued. 3. The impugned notice mentions that according to a report dated 22.09.2025, it is evident that Khasra No.473, area 0.1770 hectare, of Village Salarpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Budh Nagar, is notified as 'Industrial Development Area', under the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. The petitioner is carrying out plotting and had constructed rooms, which is adversely affecting the planned development of the area. Accordingly, he has been called upon to stop the constructions and remove unauthorized constructions raised so far, or submit his reply by 10.10.2025, as to why the constructions should not be demolished. 4. The petitioner has challenged the notice on the ground that the land in question is bhumidhari land of the petitioner and the impugned notice is Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shiv Kant Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Aditya Bhushan Singhal, C.S.C. Subhash .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) consequently illegal. 5. We find that the petitioner has already submitted his reply to the impugned notice on 29.09.2025. In our opinion, the same deserves to be decided by the Authority before any coercive action is taken by it against the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, without interfering with the impugned notice, which is in the nature of a show cause, we direct respondent no.4 to pass a speaking order, taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner on 29.09.2025, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a true attested copy of the instant order, along with photocopy of the objection dated 29.09.2025. 7. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. October 13, 2025 NLY WRIC No. 35702 of 2025 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad