Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51229-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10299 of 2025 Petitioner :- Devendra Pratap Singh And 40 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajit Narain Mishra,Kartikeya Saran,Suchita Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Narendra Pratap Singh Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Sri Kartikeya Saran for the petitioners, Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 and Sri Narendra Pratap Singh for respondent no. 3. 2. With their consent, the instant petition is being disposed of finally at this stage without inviting any formal counter affidavit. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they were allotted commercial plots by respondent no. 3 between the period 1998 to 2004. Some of the allotment letters and sale deeds have been filed collectively as annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioners are carrying on their businesses from the shops in question. Respondent no. 2, i.e. PWD, Gorkahpur in pursuance of certain scheme of the State Government, is widening the road from Nakaha Railway Crossing to Bargadwa Chauraha. The Department has marked constructions ranging from 2 meters to 5 meters with red line, indicating its intention to demolish the constructions. The respondents are regularly visiting the site and are threatening to demolish the constructions. The respondents have not acquired the land, nor there exists any demolition order and in such circumstances, the action of the respondents in threatening to demolish the constructions is wholly illegal. The petitioners have accordingly prayed for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondent-Authorities from demolishing their constructions, unless fair compensation in accordance with the provisions of law, is paid to the petitioners. 4. It is submitted that the petitioners have not been served with any notice or order under which the action is sought to be taken. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the proposed action for demolition is wholly without the authority of law. 5. Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing for the State, submits that in case the respondent- Authorities have to demolish any construction on any ground, proper notice would be given to the affected persons before taking any action. 6. Sri Narendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Gorakhpur Development Authority, also submits that in case any demolition is to be carried out, the same will be preceded by proper notice and an order, as per provisions of law. 7. Having regard to the stand of learned counsel for the respondents, we dispose of the instant petition by providing that the respondents will not interfere in the possession of the petitioners over their respective property, except in accordance with law. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Jaideep/- Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad