HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 45050 of 2013 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents and Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent no.3 – National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). 2. This writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following relief: "1) a suitable writ, order or direction calling for the order (order not served upon the petitioner) on the basis whereof constructions of the petitioner situate at Village Saeednagar Hardopatii, District Rampur now plot no. 64 Civil Lines Rampur at National Highway 24 are sought to be demolished. ii) a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining respondents, its servants and agents from demolishing the premises of the petitioner situate at Village Saeednagar Hardopatti, District Rampur now plot no. 64 Civil Lines Rampur at National Highway 24 measuring 55 feet in width and 57 feet in length (totaling 3135 sq. feet) or use coercive measures in that regard against the petitioner. iii) a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gaurav Gautam, Sunil Kumar, Vikas Budhwar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Pranjal Mehrotra, Q.H. Siddiqui Veeje Electronic Industries .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) commanding respondents to decide representation of the petitioner dated 26-06-2013 (Annexure-12) followed by reminder letter dated 18.07.2013 (Annexure-13) by a reasoned and speaking order at the earliest or within the period this Hon'ble Court may stipulate in that regard." 3. The Division Bench had granted interim relief by a detailed order dated 03.09.2013, which, for ready reference, is reproduced hereinbelow: "The case of the petitioner that it has purchased a land on which constructions have been raised by the petitioner as per the site plan for which a completion certificate has also been issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in surveying the area and marking the constructions of the petitioner for demolition by affixing red marks. With regard to such grievances, the petitioner immediately thereafter filed a representation before the respondent authorities on 26.6.2013 and also sent reminder for the same on 18.7.2013 but has not received any response. The petitioner apprehends that under the garb of road widening the constructions raised by the petitioner, which were duly sanctioned by the competent authorities, would be demolished. Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State respondents has stated that under the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, the State Government, being the agency of the Central Government and National Highways Authority of India would be obliged to proceed with the demarcation and provide the land for widening the national highways. He has however stated that the same would only be done after following the prescribed procedure and after providing the compensation to the persons whose land is so taken away or acquired. Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the National Highway Authority of India has, on having received instructions in writing, submitted that the National Highway Authority of India in the city of Rampur has not undertaken any proceedings for marking the land or constructions for being demolished for the purpose of widening the road. Such communication dated 1.8.2013 by the Project Director of the WRIC No. 45050 of 2013 2 National Highway Authority of India in the city of Rampur has been produced before us for a perusal, which is taken on record. Learned counsel the petitioner has thus submitted that on the one hand it is the contention of the State Government that they are carrying on the marking activity at the behest of National Highway Authority of India and on the other hand National Highway Authority of India in the city of Rampur itself states that they have not undertaken such activity and as such the whole proceedings for demarcation or marking the areas by the State Government is wholly illegal. In our view, the matter requires consideration. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice for the respondents no. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra for the respondent no. 3 and Sri Q.H. Siddiqui for the respondent no. 7. Issue notice to the respondent no. 6 fixing a date immediately after six weeks. All the respondents may file counter affidavit by the next date. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties especially the specific stand of the National Highway Authority of India in the city of Rampur, we direct that till the next date of listing, peaceful possession of the petitioner shall not be disturbed by the respondent authorities." 4. Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for NHAI, has placed reliance upon the counter affidavit filed on 14.01.2018, wherein a categorical communication dated 01.08.2013 has been brought on record, indicating that NHAI has not made any red mark over the premises in question and has not undertaken any road widening or utilized the petitioner’s property for that purpose. He submits that the writ petition was filed merely on an apprehension. He further submits that if, in future, the land is required for road widening by NHAI, such action shall be taken strictly in accordance with law. WRIC No. 45050 of 2013 3 5. Considering the overall factual situation, we are not inclined to keep the writ petition pending consideration. Needless to say, if the land is required for road widening in future, the same shall be done strictly in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. October 17, 2025 NLY WRIC No. 45050 of 2013 4 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad