Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30020-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6250 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohammed Faizan And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Agarawal Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Krishna Agarawal for respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. The instant petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 22.1.2025 passed by respondent no. 3 in exercise of power under Section 10 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, read with Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Area Building Regulations, 2010. The constructions made by the petitioners over Khasra No. 33, area 1.1320 hectare without approval of the competent authority, i.e. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, has been directed to be removed within fifteen days, failing which, the Authority reserved right to remove the same and to recover expenses incurred in this regard from the petitioners. 3. The impugned order recites that the proceedings started with a report submitted by the Land Record Department on 5.10.2021, stating that the petitioners were found carrying on plotting and constructing house and shops over Khasra No. 33, area 1.1320 hectare, Village Kadarpur, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Budh Nagar, without approval of the competent authority. Gata No. 33 is part of the notified area. It is stated that the constructions would interfere with the planned development of the area inasmuch as, the same would be contrary to the Master Plan - 2031, approved on 8.10.2013. It is also stated that as per Clause 20.3 of the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Area Building Regulations, 2010, in the event there is any unauthorized development, the Chief Executive Officer is invested with power to take suitable action which may include demolition of unauthorized works. Consequently, the order has been passed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that the subject land falls within the 'industrial development area' as per Government Notification dated 22.8.2001. There is also no dispute that master plan for the said area was approved on 8.10.2013 and that under Building Regulations, no construction is permitted without obtaining permit from the Development Authority. The relevant regulation in this behalf is as follows: - "4.0 Building permit - No person shall erect any building or a boundary wall or fencing without obtaining a prior permit thereof, from the Chief Executive Officer or an Officer authorized by the Chief Executive Officer for this purpose." 5. In the entire writ petition, there is no denial of the fact that the petitioners made constructions as mentioned in the impugned order, without obtaining approval from the competent authority. The only submission is that the notices sent to petitioners for contesting the proceedings were not served upon them, thus there is breach of principles of natural justice. 6. Sri Krishna Agarawal, learned counsel for the respondent- Development Authority, submits that the impugned order clearly indicates that twice notice was sent to the petitioners by registered post. There is presumption of service of notice sent by registered post. He further submits that copy of the impugned order was also sent to the petitioners at the same address and which had admittedly been received by them. 7. The order recites that first registered notice was sent to them on 28.11.2021 and another registered notice was sent to them on 11.10.2024. It is not the case of the petitioners that the address at which the notices were sent by registered post, was not correct. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3, there would be presumption of service of notice sent to the petitioners by registered post. Concededly, the copy of impugned order was sent to the petitioners at the same address and it was duly delivered to them. 8. Additionally, we gave opportunity to learned counsel for the petitioners to explain the circumstances in which the constructions have been raised by the petitioners and whether the petitioners have any building permit from the respondent-Authority. He admits that the petitioners do not have any permit/approval for raising any construction. 9. In view of the undisputed factual position as admitted before us and also borne out from the record, we find no substance in the submission that the impugned order stands vitiated on any ground, including ground of violation of principles of natural justice, as sought to be contended before us. 10. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Jaideep/- Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad