Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1670 (ALL)

SWAPNIL PRAKASH v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIC/7796/2026 · 2026-05-06

Kunal Ravi Singh, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 7796 of 2026 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Uttarra Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents; and Shri Vinayak Nath Singh, Advocate, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 3, the Chief Executive Officer, Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar (for short, "Authority"). 2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following principal relief: "(i) to issue a writ of mandamus command the respondents forthwith to not interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner's house which is situated in part of total area of 0.8210 hectare of the Khasara No. 258 Khata no. 257 Khata no. 8 situated at village Amipur Bangar. Tehsil Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr till the disposal of representation dated 24.10.2025 respondent No. 3 Chief Executive Officer, Yamuna Expressway, Industrial Development Authority. " 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the contesting-respondents has raised an objection qua the maintainability of the instant proceeding on the ground that the proceedings have yet to be finalized and, as such, the same is premature. He further submits that the Authority has been constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act 1976, and in case the Authority proceeds to carry out demolition proceedings, a notice under Section 10 of the Act shall be served upon the petitioner. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vinayak Nath Singh Swapnil Prakash .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Considering the factual situation and the claim as set up by the petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, it is observed that the Authority shall be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly. May 7, 2026 A.K.Srivastava WRIC No. 7796 of 2026 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad