HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 18952 of 2026 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned A.C.S.C. for the State respondents and Sri Kaushlendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida). 2. The instant writ petition is preferred for challenging the impugned demolition notice dated 01.09.2023 and the order impugned dated 28.04.2025 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Noida. 3. The record reflects that earlier the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction by filing Writ-C No. 38759 of 2024 challenging the order dated 01.09.2023 passed by the Noida Authority for demolition of Pakka construction of the petitioner. In the said proceeding the petitioner claimed that the constructions are part of Abadi and far away from the acquired land. The order impugned has been passed by the Authority taking stand that the construction is existing over Khasra Nos. 578 and 531, which is acquired land of the Noida Authority. The Division Bench vide an order dated 09.12.2024 directed the respondent authority to carry out survey to establish whether the constructions are existing over the acquired land or not. The Division Bench has intervened in the order impugned dated 01.09.2023 on the premise that the authority had not carried out any such survey to establish as to whether the constructions were existing over the acquired Plot Nos. 578 and 531 or not. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that in an Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajeev Kumar Rai, Sanjay Kumar Rajbhar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kaushalendra Nath Singh Parmanand .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) arbitrary manner, in response to the direction issued by the Writ Court, order impugned has been passed relying on the some alleged satellite image position qua the constructions over the land in question in the year 2011 and submits that the petitioner is having the construction over unacquired land. The order impugned is per-se illegal, unsustainable and devoid of merits, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, Sri Kaushlendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the Noida Authority has resisted the relief and submits that highly disputed fact has been pressed before this Court. Initially the petitioner has been issued notice under Section 2(d), Section 10 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, which was replied by the petitioner and considering the reply of the petitioner a final notice dated 01.09.2023 was issued holding that the objection raised by the petitioner is per se unsustainable as such survey has been carried out by the Authority to ensure whether the constructions are existing over Khasra Nos. 578 and 531 or not. Later on, in response to the direction of the Division Bench, the survey was got conducted and it has been found that the petitioner had not raised any construction over Khasra Nos. 518 and the actual encroachment is over acquired land of Khasra Nos. 578 and 531. He submits that under the facts and circumstances the Authority had rightly passed the order, which warrants no interference. However, he fairly submits that even against the order impugned the petitioner has the efficacious remedy to press application before the State Government under U/s 12 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 read with Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning Development Act, 1973. 6. We have occasion to peruse the order impugned and then find that highly disputed facts have been pressed before us, therefore, we are not inclined to exercise writ jurisdiction as we are not in a position to advert whether the petitioner’s construction is existing over the un-acquired land or over Khasra Nos. 578 and 531, which is acquired by the Noida Authority. Either the petitioner may avail the efficacious remedy for actual demarcation under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 or to press application before the State Government under Section 12 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 read with Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning Development Act, 1973. WRIC No. 18952 of 2026 2 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we leave it open to the petitioner to press the relief before the appropriate Revenue Authority/State Authority in accordance with law. In case the petitioner files any such application within ten days from today along with the stay application, we expect that the said application shall be considered and decided in further six weeks time strictly in accordance with law. 8. Till disposal of the stay application, the parties shall maintain status quo as on today. The petitioner is also restrained from carrying out any further development at the disputed site. In case any such activity is carried out, the authority is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. May 14, 2026 Pkb/ WRIC No. 18952 of 2026 3 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad