Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141977-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28050 of 2025 Petitioner :- Tarun Kumar Singh Respondent :- The State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sr. Advocate,Vikram Bahadur Singh,Vishakha Pande Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Vishakha Pande and Shri Vikram Bahadur Singh, learned counsels for the petitioner, Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, and Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 – NOIDA Authority. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following relief: "i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned demolition order/notice dated 20.06.2025 (Annexure No. 9 to this writ petition) passed by the Senior Manager, Work Circle 5, Noida, the respondent no. 3; ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with the constructions raised by the petitioner on plot no. 36 situated in Village - Garhi Chaukhandi, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Buddha Nagar purchased by him;" 3. Learned counsels for the respondents have raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy of filing a revision under Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1973”). It is submitted that without availing the remedy provided under the Act, the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Confronted with the situation, Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, fairly states that he has no objection in case the Court is inclined to relegate the petitioner to the State Government under Section 41 of the Act, 1973. However, his apprehension is that, in the meantime, the NOIDA Authority may proceed to demolish the disputed premises. He, therefore, submits that the Court may direct the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the stay application likely to be filed by the petitioner, otherwise the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and the revision itself may eventually be rendered infructuous. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a revision under Section 41 of the Act, 1973 along with a stay application against the impugned notice before the competent authority within ten days from today, raising all such objections as may be available to him under law. The competent authority concerned shall consider and decide the stay application in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of submission of a copy of this order along with a copy of the revision, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, the revision itself shall also be decided expeditiously. Till the disposal of the stay application, the parties shall maintain status quo. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioner. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 NLY Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad