Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 38310 (ALL)

SMT. SARITA NAGAR v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

WRIC/10845/2025 · 2025-08-13

Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Vinod Diwakar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138919-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10845 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Sarita Nagar Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Tripathi,Vinod Kumar Tirpathi Counsel for Respondent :- Akhilesh Kumar Sharma,C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Suresh Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondent and Shri Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (in short "Authority"). 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for a direction to respondent no.2 to release the compensation amount in favour of the petitioner for breaking the Cowshed of the petitioner, which was constructed upon Khasra No.2339M area 0.664 Hect. and for a further direction to respondent no.2 to give exchange land to the petitioner in place of Khasra No.2339M area 0.664 hect. 3. On the matter being taken up today, learned counsel for the Authority, on the basis of instructions, states that in view of the notification dated 08.02.2008 the disputed land falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Authority, which is constituted under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 (in short "Act, 1976") and the said land falling in Sector 28 of the Authority is earmarked for Medical Device Park. He states that the Authority is inclined either to purchase or acquire the said land under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. As such, the instant writ petition, being premature, is liable to be dismissed at this stage. 4. Considering the factual situation as well as the categorical objection raised by learned counsel for the Authority, we find that at present no cause of action survives to press the instant writ petition. However, it is clarified that the Authority is at liberty to proceed strictly in accordance with law. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 SP/ Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad