BHURE ALIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 4 OTHERS

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                  WRIT - C No. - 37512 of 2026

Bhure Ali
                                                                                      .....Petitioner(s)
                                                  Versus

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others
                                                                                   .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                                        :     Akanksha Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)                                        :     C.S.C.

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
                                                                                                                     WRIC No. 37512 of 2026
                                                                                  2


                                    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.



                                                                           (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
                                    September 18, 2026
                                    Sumit S




Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad