HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4589 of 2026 Court No. - 53 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Brijesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The present contempt petition has been preferred alleging non-compliance of the order dated 15.10.2025 passed in Writ C No. 33691 of 2025, the order whereof is quoted hereinunder: "1. Heard Shri Suresh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents and Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent - New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA). 2. This writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following relief: "i. to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure No.1) passed by the respondent no.3. ii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of land of Khasra Nos. 117, 106M, 106Ka, 173, 175, 156 and Part of 172 of the petitioner situated in Village- Haldauni, Pargana- Dadri, Tehsil- Dadri, Gautam Buddha Nagar. iii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay compensation of the land of Khasra No. 171, 129, 131 & part of 172 after being determined in accordance with provisions of Government Order dated 12.05.2016 or in lieu of compensation to handover possession of equivalent area from the land of Respondent No.3-NOIDA adjacent to the petitioner's land i.e. Khasra No. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Suresh Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amit Tyagi .....Applicant(s) Shri Pratit Singh, Tehsildar, Tehsil- Dadri And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 100, 101, 102, 104, 105 & 155." 3. In response to the order dated 08.10.2025, Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent - NOIDA Authority has placed on record detailed instructions, which are taken on record. On the strength of the instructions, it is claimed that a total area of 93.625 hectares of land situated in Village Haldoni, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar, was proposed to be acquired and accordingly, notifications under Sections 4/17(4) and 6/17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act, 1894') were issued. For this purpose, a proposal was sent by the Revenue Officer, Noida, through letter dated 08.05.1997 to the then Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Noida-Ghaziabad, which included Khasra Nos. 117, 106, 173, 175, 156, 172, 171, 129, and 131. However, the said officer, vide letter dated 16.05.1997, informed that the aforesaid Khasra numbers were affected by ceiling proceedings as the same were declared excess land under ceiling and accordingly returned the proposal, directing submission of a revised one. Thereafter, a proposal for re-acquisition of 16.482 acres of land, was forwarded to the District Land Management Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar, on 08.01.1998. 4. He further submits that for the re-acquisition/ resumption of the land included in the said proposal, the valuation of the land was assessed at Rs.7,87,46,000/-, and the stamp duty amount was Rs.59,060.00. The said amounts were directed to be deposited through letter dated 21.10.2008 issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar. Out of the total area of 7.8746 hectares (16.482 acres) included in the proposal, a re-acquisition order was passed only for 1.1450 hectares, while the proposal for the remaining 6.729 hectares was sent to the Government through letter dated 05.12.2016, which is still pending consideration. He submits that as the land was declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, as such there was no requirement for acquisition. 5. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the NOIDA Authority submits that it is not in dispute that the property in question was under physical possession of the NOIDA Authority as the boundary wall was already raised in the year 2012. It is submitted that on the basis of sale deeds and some revenue entries, the petitioner is claiming rights over the property in question which is in physical possession of the NOIDA Authority and where a boundary wall was also raised for protection. He further submits that the petitioner forcibly broke the boundary wall of NOIDA Authority, installed a gate, and made certain unauthorized constructions over the land. Against such illegal acts, notices were issued to the petitioner, whereafter he approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 26243 of 2024 CAPL No. 4589 of 2026 2 (Amit Tyagi vs. State of U.P. and others), which was disposed of on 12.08.2024. He further stated that the mutation in the petitioner's name was carried out by the Revenue Department without providing any opportunity of hearing to the NOIDA Authority, rendering the said action unsustainable in law. He submits that the acquisition proposal was earlier withdrawn after the land was declared to be under ceiling, and therefore, the land in question continues to belong to NOIDA Authority. Since the petitioner has made attempts to take forcible possession and raised unauthorized constructions thereon, the matter has been considered to be of a serious nature. Accordingly, an SIT has been constituted by the NOIDA Authority to inquire into the matter, and the investigation is presently going on. 6. The aforesaid instructions are resisted by Shri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, on the strength of a revenue entry. He submitted that the petitioner has purchased the land in question and the revenue entry has also been made in the name of the petitioner. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon para-8 of the impugned order dated 25.07.2025 in which it is mentioned that out of the total 7.8746 hectares (16.482 acres) of land included in the re-acquisition proposal for village Haldoni, after the re-acquisition order was passed in respect of 1.1450 hectares of land, a letter dated 05.12.2016 was sent by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Gautam Buddh Nagar to the Government for issuance of a re-acquisition order in respect of the remaining 6.729 hectares of land. He submits that it is an admitted fact that the land in question has not been acquired by the NOIDA Authority and without paying compensation, the NOIDA Authority cannot dispossess the petitioner from his holding. 7. Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents, resisted the reliefs sought and submitted that merely on the basis of a revenue entry, no title can be conferred over surplus land. 8. In the light of the detailed instructions placed before us, we find that the objections on behalf of the State are also required in the instant matter. 9. Accordingly, a copy of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner shall be served upon Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, during the course of the day. 10. Considering the nature of the dispute, it is directed that a counter affidavit shall be filed on behalf of the State-respondents by an officer not below the rank of Secretary, Revenue Department. The NOIDA Authority shall also file its response within the same period, i.e., within three weeks, through an officer not below the rank of Assistant Chief Executive Officer. The petitioner shall have one week thereafter to file a rejoinder CAPL No. 4589 of 2026 3 affidavit. 11. List this matter again in top ten cases on 26.11.2025. 12. Till the next date of listing, the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the disputed land. The petitioner is also restrained from carrying out any further development over the same or alienating the property in favour of any third party." 3. This Court on 22.07.2026 proceeded to pass the following orders: "Let a copy of the contempt application be served upon Sri Brijesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel who shall seek instructions. Put up this case on 04.08.2026 as fresh." 4. Thereafter this Court on 02.09.2026 proceeded to pass the following orders: "1. The present contempt petition has been preferred alleging non- compliance of the order dated 15.10.2025 passed in Writ C No. 33691 of 2025. 2. This court on 22.07.2026 proceeded to pass the following orders: "Let a copy of the contempt application be served upon Sri Brijesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel who shall seek instructions. Put up this case on 04.08.2026 as fresh." 3. Today, instructions have been produced dated 01.09.2026 of District Magistrate Gautam Buddha. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that on the basis of an order dated 29.06.2026 of Board of Revenue, now entries have been changed. 5. On a specific query being raised to Sri Brijesh Kumar as to what is the reason of insertion of the order dated 29.06.2026. He seeks time to file a response bringing on record the order dated 29.06.2026 and also apprise the Court about the nature of the said land. 6. Put up this case on 24.09.2026 as fresh. 7. Instructions have been filed today is taken on record and marked as Appendix-A." 5. Today, instructions have been produced under the signature of Tehsildar, Dadri dated 03.08.2026 in which the following has been asserted: "ित्रवेणी सहकारी आवास सिमित द्वारा जानकारी न देने के उपरांत उक्त आदेश िदनांक- 29.06.2026 का अमलदरामद राजस्व अिभलेखों में िकया गया है। चूंिक ित्रवेणी सहकारी आवास सिमित लगातार भूिम को िवक्रय कर रही है, इसिलए राजकीय िहत में तथा राजकीय संपित्त के संरक्षण करने की िनयत से एवं उक्त संपित्त पर िकसी तृतीय पक्ष का स्वत्व (Title) का िनधार्रण न हो इसिलए आदेश िदनांक- 29.06.2026 का अमलदरामद राजस्व अिभलेखों CAPL No. 4589 of 2026 4 में िकया गया है।" 6. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, once there happens to be an order of status quo in respect of the disputed land restraining the petitioner from carrying out any further development or alienating the property in favour of any third party vide order dated 15.10.2025 passed in Writ C No. 33691 of 2025, then there was no question of endorsing the entry dated 29.06.2026 which reads as under: "(1) स्थगन आदेशानुसार श्रीमान तह, महोदय के आदेश पत्रांक 3664/आर.सी./ िदनाक 29.06.2026 के क्रम में मा. आयुक्त एवं सिचव, राजस्व पिरषद, उ.प्र. आयुक्त एवं सिचव, राजस्व पिरषद, उ.प्र. अनुभाग-5, लखनऊ के पत्र संख्या 656/5-4/2028 (िसिलग) िदनांक 28.04.2023 के द्वारा िनदेर्श िदये गये है, िक "जब तक प्रश्नगत प्रकरण पर शासन स्तर से वधीिचत िनषय नहीं ही जता, तब तक तथाकिथत सीिलग खाते की भूिम का अग्रेतर िवक्रय/नामान्तरण पर प्रितबंध लगाया जाचे" ततक्रम में कायार्लय िजलािधकारी गौतमबुद्धनगर के पत्रांक 386/िसिलग िलिपक/2025 िदनाक 20.03.2025 एवं तत्कालीन अपर िजलािधकारी (भु, अ), गािजयाबाद के पत्र िवताक 16.05.1997 के अनुसार सीिलग खाते की भूिम अग्रेतर िवक्रय/नामान्तरण पर प्रितवन्ध लगाया जाता" 7. Shri Brijesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel as per specific instructions from the opposite party submits that the only purpose of incorporating the said entry is that a deterrent might be there that the property may not be alienated or transferred to a third person as whenever the third person purchases the property then at least while title search, he may be able to gain knowledge about the restraint order passed by the Writ Court. He submits that there is no question of affecting or altering / determining the title right of the applicant in that regard. 8. In view of the said statement so made by Shri Brijesh Kumar on the basis of the instructions, this Court does not find the present case to be a case wherein contempt proceedings are to go on. 9. Accordingly, the contempt application is consigned to record, leaving it open to the applicant to again approach as and when occasion arises. September 24, 2026 Ashu CAPL No. 4589 of 2026 5 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad