AMIT TYAGIversusSHRI PRATIT SINGH, TEHSILDAR, TEHSIL- DADRI AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

       CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4589 of 2026

Amit Tyagi
                                                                    .....Applicant(s)
                                      Versus

Shri Pratit Singh, Tehsildar, Tehsil- Dadri And 2
Others                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                              Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                       :   Suresh Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                  :

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.
                                                           CAPL No. 4589 of 2026
                              2

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
                               3

(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
                                        4

     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:

     "त्रिवेणी सहकारी आवास समिति द्वारा जानकारी न देने के उपरांत उक्त आदेश दिनांक-
     29.06.2026 का अमलदरामद राजस्व अभिलेखों में किया गया है। चूकि
                                                               ं त्रिवेणी सहकारी
     आवास समिति लगातार भूमि को विक्रय कर रही है, इसलिए राजकीय हित में तथा राजकीय
     संपत्ति के संरक्षण करने की नियत से एवं उक्त संपत्ति पर किसी तृतीय पक्ष का स्वत्व (Title)
     का निर्धारण न हो इसलिए आदेश दिनांक- 29.06.2026 का अमलदरामद राजस्व अभिलेखों
                                                                                                           CAPL No. 4589 of 2026
                                                                           5

                                         में किया 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./ दिनाक
                                         29.06.2026 के क्रम में मा. आयुक्त एवं सचिव, राजस्व परिषद, उ.प्र. अनुभाग-5, लखनऊ
                                         के पत्र संख्या 656/5-4/2028 (सिलिंग) दिनांक 28.04.2023 के द्वारा निर्देश दिये गये है,
                                         कि "जब तक प्रश्नगत प्रकरण पर शासन स्तर से वधीचित निषय नहीं ही जता, तब तक
                                         तथाकथित सीलिंग खाते की भूमि का अग्रेतर विक्रय/नामान्तरण पर प्रतिबंध लगाया जाचे"
                                         ततक्रम में कार्यालय जिलाधिकारी गौतमबुद्धनगर के पत्रांक 386/सिलिंग लिपिक/2025
                                         दिनाक 20.03.2025 एवं तत्कालीन अपर जिलाधिकारी (भु, अ), गाजियाबाद के पत्र
                                         विताक 16.05.1997 के अनुसार सीलिंग खाते की भूमि अग्रेतर विक्रय/नामान्तरण पर
                                         प्रतिवन्ध 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
                                                                                                          (Vikas Budhwar,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad