HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 35913 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Ms. Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel for Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (in short "YEIDA"). 2. The instant writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India assailing the validity of the impugned notices dated 10.09.2025 issued by Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar. Further request is made to issue direction to the respondents not to demolish the construction of the petitioners existed upon Khasra No.145 area 1.1755 hectare situated at Revenue Village Sakipur, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Budh Nagar. 3. It appears from the record that the petitioners are co-owners with transferable right of Khasra Nos.145 area 2.3510 hectare and 176 area 0.0890 hectare situated at revenue Village Sakipur, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The impugned notices have been given to the petitioners separately mentioning therein that Khasra No.145 of Village Sakipur is notified as 'Industrial Development Area', under the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. The petitioners are carrying out illegal constructions, which are adversely affecting the planned development of the area. Accordingly, they have been called upon to stop the constructions and remove unauthorized constructions raised so far, or submit their reply within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, as to why the constructions should not be demolished. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Durga Prasad Tiwari, Golu Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C. Man Singh Alias Monu Bhati and 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. The petitioners have challenged the notices on the ground that the land in question is bhumidhari land of the petitioners and the impugned notices are consequently illegal. 5. We find that the petitioners have already submitted his reply to the impugned notices on 16.09.2025. In our opinion, the same deserves to be decided by the Authority before any coercive action is taken by it against the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, without interfering with the impugned notices, which are 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 petitioners on 16.09.2025, 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 16.09.2025. 7. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. October 15, 2025 RKP WRIC No. 35913 of 2025 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad