Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 36186 (ALL)

AMIT KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/9746/2025 · 2025-04-30

Anish Kumar Gupta, Manoj Kumar Gupta

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69257-DB HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ***** (Sl No.64) Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9746 of 2025 Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nand Lal Yadav,Sunil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Aditya Bhushan Singhal,C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. The petitioners have called in question a notice dated 07.03.2025 issued by respondent no. 3 and for a restraint order against the said respondent so that no interference is caused in the possession of the petitioners over the land in respect of which impugned notice dated 07.03.2025 has been issued. 2. The impugned notice mentions that according to a report dated 28.02.2025, it is evident that Khasra No. 145, area 1.4280 hectare, of Village Neemka Shahjahanpur, Tehsil Jewar, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, was notified as 'Industrial Development Area', under the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. The petitioners were raising constructions and changing the prescribed usage, which is 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 by 19.03.2025, as to why the constructions should not be demolished. 3. The petitioners have challenged the notice on the ground that the land in question is bhumidhari land of the petitioners and the impugned notice is consequently illegal. 4. We find that the petitioners have already submitted their reply on 24.03.2025 to the impugned notice. In our opinion, the same deserves to be decided by the Authority before any coercive action is taken by it against the petitioners. 5. Accordingly, without interfering with the impugned notice, which is in the nature of a show cause, we direct respondent no. 3 to pass a speaking order, taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioners on 24.03.2025, 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 24.03.2025. 6. The petition stands disposed of, accordingly. 7. The order has been passed in the presence of Sri Shadab Husain, holding brief of Sri Aditya Bhushan Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent-Development Authority. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Shubham Arya (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad