Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143746-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27354 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajveer Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri F.A.Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA). 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the impugned notice dated 8.4.2025 and to consider the claim cum representation dated 26/27.05.2025 (Annexure Nos 1 and 5 to the writ petition respectively). 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondent raised an objection qua maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that admittedly the disputed Gata over which the construction exists, is an acquired land and the same falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the NOIDA. The notice has been served upon the petitioners under Section 10 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. He submits that nothing is brought on record to substantiate that the petitioners have any right, title or claim over the disputed Gata. Moreover, the constructions have been raised without obtaining a map sanctioned by NOIDA. In absence thereof, the NOIDA has no other option except to carry out demolition strictly in accordance with law. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon judgments of this Court in Moolchand Rana v. Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA and others (Writ Petition No. 5188 of 2011, dt. 24.4.2016), Roopram and others v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 54217 of 2014, dt. 03.11.2014) and M/s Vansh Enterprises v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and 2 others (Writ Petition No. 16843 of 2016, dt. 19.4.2016). 4. In this backdrop, we have made repeated queries to learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the petitioners are owners or occupiers of the disputed land, to which no satisfactory response is given by learned counsel for the petitioners. Nothing is brought on record to indicate that at any point of time, the occupier/alleged owners have made an application for getting the map sanctioned under the Act, 1976. More so, the name of the NOIDA is also duly mutated in the relevant revenue record in the year 2019. 5. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned notice, which requires interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 A.K.Srivastava Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad