Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138331-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26368 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sanchit Verma And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Shukla,Ashutosh Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nipun Singh Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard Shri Ashutosh Shukla learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri Suresh Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Naman Agrawal, learned counsel for U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (in short "Parishad"). 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the impugned notice/ order dated 05.05.2025 issued by respondent no.3, published in newspaper on 14.06.2025 and for a direction to respondents not to acquire the petitioners' land and dispossess them from their respective Arazi comprising in the scheme known as "Bhoomi Vikas Evam Grihsthan Yojana No.4, Jhansi" (in short "Scheme in question") in pursuance of notice dated 05.05.2025. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for Parishad has raised objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that Parishad had framed the scheme in question for public purpose. A notification under Section 28 of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Act, 1965 (in short "Parishad Act") had been issued on 05.05.2025 disclosing the boundaries under which several arazi/ residential plots of Mauza Kocchabhawar and Takori of Tehsil and District Jhansi were included. By virtue of sub-section 2 (a) of the Parishad Act, the aforesaid notice dated 05.05.2025 was published in the Gazette on 17.05.2025. Aforesaid notice was again published in the Gazette on 24.05.2025. For the third time, the said notice was published in the Gazette on 31.05.2025. He submits that admittedly the petitioners had preferred objection but till date the Parishad had not issued final publication under Section 32 of the Parishad Act. He fairly submits that Parishad Act is self- contained Act, wherein full fledged mechanism is provided for making final declaration under Section 32. The writ petition, at this stage, is premature as firstly the objection would be considered and only thereafter the final publication under Section 32 of the Parishad Act would be made. He submits that being premature the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Considering the factual situation as well as the categorical objection raised by learned counsel for the Parishad, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage. However, in the interest of justice, we observe that as the petitioners had already preferred objection, the same would be considered strictly in accordance with law prior to issuance of notification under Section 32 of the Parishad Act. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 SP/ Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad