HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 37512 of 2026 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Ms. Akanksha Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred challenging two different notices, one is notice dated 10.07.2026 issued by the Prescribed Authority under the Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 and the other notice dated 10.07.2026 issued by the concerned Tehsildar under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 3. Initially, when the State-respondents had intended to demolish the house of the petitioner, the petitioner had approached this Court by means of Writ C No. 45186 of 2025 : Bhure Ali Vs. State of U.P. and others, in which the following order was passed :- "1. Petition has been filed by the petitioner who is purportedly aggrieved by the alleged actions of the State in purported collusion with the respondent no.3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has filed a civil suit in which an interim protection has been granted whereby the learned trial court has directed that status quo shall be maintained between the parties to the suit. However, it also categorically states that the interim protection granted by it shall not extend to any instrumentality of the State and shall not bind them. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent no.3 has been making frivolous complaints to the respondent nos.1 and 2, on the basis of which the State and its instrumentality are Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akanksha Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Bhure Ali .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) perpetually interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner. 4. As it is undisputed by the petitioner itself that the dispute is a private dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.3 for which the civil suit is pending before the trial court, this petition can be disposed of with the direction that the instrumentality of the State irrespective of the department, in the event they seek to take action against the property of the petitioner, they shall follow the procedure established by law and give notice and adequate time to the petitioner to seek succor under the special statute being the Revenue Code or any such other law under which the action is proposed to be taken by the State. 5. With the above this petition stands disposed of. " 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that at the behest of the private individual, against whom an order dated 10.12.2025 has been passed under Order 39 Rule 2 C.P.C. in Civil Suit No. 170 of 2024 : Bhure Ali Vs. Navneet Gandhi and another, this order is being passed. 5. Learned Standing Counsel states that if any reply is submitted to the show cause notice, it shall be considered in accordance with law. 6. Under the circumstances, it is provided that if no order has been passed pursuant to the aforesaid two notices, it shall always be open to the petitioner to submit his replies to the two notices and the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. September 18, 2026 Sumit S WRIC No. 37512 of 2026 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad