Allahabad High Court
MEHTAB ALAM AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the representation filed on 24 June 2026 must be decided by the respondent within one month, after affording the petitioners a proper hearing.
Summary
The petitioners, Mehtab Alam and another, claimed that their land became unusable due to the construction of an expressway and that the Uttar Pradesh Expressways Industrial Development Authority (UPEIDA) had ordered on 7 August 2025 to provide them an alternative plot, which had not been implemented. They had also made a representation on 24 June 2026 before the Chief Executive Officer of UPEIDA seeking relief. The respondents argued that the petitioners' application would be considered expeditiously. The Court examined the delay in complying with UPEIDA's order and the petitioners' right to a hearing. It directed that the representation filed on 24 June 2026 be decided by the respondent within one month, after giving the petitioners a proper opportunity of hearing, and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether UPEIDA is bound to implement its order of 7 August 2025 to provide an alternative plot to the petitioners.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to a hearing before any further action on their representation is taken.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- expressway
- UPEIDA
- alternative plot
- hearing
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 34733 of 2026
Mehtab Alam And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rahul Sahai
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Jai Bahadur Singh
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel and Sri Jai
Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2 to 4.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that their land which had become unusable
because of the construction of the expressway, they had requested the Uttar Pradesh
Expressways Industrial Development Authority (henceforth called the "UPEIDA") to
make the expressway in such a manner that the Petrol Pump may not become
unusable. The UPEIDA, in its turn, passed an order dated 7.8.2025 wherein it was
provided that a plot may be provided elsewhere. However, the order dated 7.8.2025
has, till date, not been honoured.
3. From the record, we find that the petitioners had also represented on 24.6.2026
before the Chief Executive Officer, UPEIDA.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 states that the application filed
by the petitioners would itself be looked into and shall be decided expeditiously.
5. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the
representation dated 24.6.2026 filed by the petitioners be decided by the respondent
no.2 after giving a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a period of
one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
September 17, 2026
GS
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
GAUTAM SONI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…