Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:131109-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25829 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Kamla Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Sekhar Pandey,Shashi Kant Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shiv Prakash Gupta Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Mr. Shiv Prakash Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Meerut Development Authority (in short "M.D.A.") and perused the material on the record. 2. By means of the instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- "(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24/07/2025 (Annexure No.1) passed by Enforcement Officer, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut. (II) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus restraining to the respondent from making interference in peaceful construction the cattle house of the petitioners over Arazi No. 173 situated at Village-Murlipur Phool, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Meerut. (III) issue any other suitable order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the end of justice. (IV) Award the cost of the Writ Petition to the petitioners." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are the owner of the Arazi No.173 situated at Village- Murlipur Phool, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Meerut. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the M.D.A. lacks territorial jurisdiction to issue the notice dated 24.07.2025, and on this ground alone, the impugned notice is per se unsustainable and liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the M.D.A. is not vested with the authority to issue the impugned notice, as at no point of time, any notification under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1973") has been issued extending the territorial jurisdiction of the Development Authority upto the property in question. 4. Per contra, Mr. Shiv Prakash Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the M.D.A. has raised a preliminary objection qua the maintainability of the writ petition on two-fold submissions, firstly, on the ground that the present writ petition is premature as the same is filed against the impugned notice, wherein the proceeding under Section 27 (1) of the Act, 1973 has not been finalised and secondly, in case the proceedings are finalized under Section 27(1) of the Act, 1973, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy to file an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner and thereafter, the revision before the State Government. Therefore, the present writ petition is premature and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Considering the objection so raised by the petitioners, at this stage, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. Needless to say, in case the petitioners file an objection within two weeks' time against the notice under Section 27(1) of the Act, 1973, the same would be decided by the competent authority within next three weeks. Till disposal of the said objection, the respondents are restrained from carrying out any demolition. 6. It is made clear that petitioners are also restrained not to carry out any development over the property in question till the final outcome of the objection. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Sachin Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad