Allahabad High Court

PARMANANDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 13 May 2026
Bench: MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI KUNAL RAVI SINGH

Holding

The Court declined to interfere with the demolition order, directing the petitioner to seek relief before the appropriate revenue or state authority for demarcation.

Summary

The petitioner, Parmanand, filed a writ petition challenging a demolition notice dated 01‑09‑2023 and a subsequent order dated 28‑04‑2025 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Noida Authority, alleging that his structures were on unacquired land. Earlier, the Division Bench had directed the Authority to conduct a survey to ascertain whether the constructions lay on Khasra Nos. 578 and 531, which are acquired lands. The Authority later completed the survey and concluded that the encroachment was indeed on the acquired plots, prompting the demolition order. The petitioner contended that the order was based merely on a 2011 satellite image and was therefore illegal. The High Court held that the factual dispute regarding the location of the construction is best resolved by the appropriate revenue or state authority under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, and therefore declined to interfere. Consequently, the petition was disposed, with a stay order maintaining the status quo pending any application before the designated authorities.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition challenging a demolition order when the factual question of land acquisition status requires a survey and demarcation.
Whether the demolition order issued by the Noida Authority is illegal or unsustainable on the basis of the petitioner’s claim of unacquired land.

Legislation cited

U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 — s. 10, 12, 2(d)
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 24
U.P. Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973 — s. 41(3)

Subjects

demolition
writ petition
encroachment
acquired land
Noida Authority
survey
revenue code
industrial area development act
urban planning development act
stay order

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 18952 of 2026

Parmanand
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajeev Kumar Rai, Sanjay Kumar
Rajbhar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kaushalendra Nath Singh

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
WRIC No. 18952 of 2026
2

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
3

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.

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
May 14, 2026
Pkb/

Digitally signed by :-
PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…