SMT. ADESHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                          WRIT - C No. - 6677 of 2026

Smt. Adesh
                                                                 .....Petitioner(s)
                                     Versus

State Of U.P. And 7 Others
                                                              .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)         : Keshav Kumar Srivastava,              Saurav
                                    Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)         : C.S.C., Tejasvi Misra

Court No. - 21
             HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
             HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Saurav Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Uttara
Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State
respondents and Sri Tejasvi Misra, learned counsel appearing for the
Ghaziabad Development Authority.

2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following relief :-

     "i. Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of
     Mandamus commanding the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4
     (Ghaziabad Development Authority) to immediately halt the
     ongoing illegal and unauthorized commercial construction
     being carried out by Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 on Khasra No.
     1030 and 1063, situated at Village Mahrauli, NH-9, District
     Ghaziabad.

     ii. Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of Mandamus
     directing the Respondent-Authorities to demolish the
     unauthorized commercial structures raised on the aforesaid
     plots in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the
     U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

     iii. Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of
     Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 (State of U.P.) or
     Respondent No. 5 (District Magistrate) to conduct an inquiry
                                                       WRIC No. 6677 of 2026
                               2


     into the submission of the fraudulent demolition report dated
     28.09.2025 on the official portal and to take strict
     disciplinary/legal action against the officials found responsible
     for misrepresenting facts."

3. At the outset, Sri Tejasvi Misra, learned counsel representing
Ghaziabad Development Authority (for short, 'G.D.A.') has placed the
detailed instructions, which is taken on record. He submits that the
petitioner, who is the sister-in-law of respondent no.7, has made various
complaints on account of some family dispute wherein she has alleged
that the respondents are carrying out construction activity over Khasra
Nos. 1027 and 1064 and the matter pertains to actual demarcation at the
site in question. He further submits that in consequence thereof, complaint
has been entertained and it has been found that certain construction has
been carried out over Khasra Nos.1030 and 1063, accordingly, the
Authority proceeded to issue a notice under Section 27(1) of the U.P.
Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Act, 1973')
and later on, once the construction has been carried out unabated,
proceeding under Section 28(1) of the Act, 1973 were initiated. Presently,
the premise in question has been sealed and the adequate information has
already been sent to the concerned S.H.O. It is also apprised to the Court
that in view of the notice under Section 27(1) of the Act, 1973, certain
demolition proceeding has also been carried out.

4. In this backdrop, learned counsel for respondent no.7 has raised an
objection that the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition with
concealment of material facts as a family dispute is engaging at various
forum i.e. civil and criminal proceedings and the same has not been
divulged.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances and the complaint so moved
by the petitioner, we find that the Ghaziabad Development Authority,
which is the responsible Authority to ensure that the construction is to be
carried out in its territorial jurisdiction in accordance with law, has
already taken remedial measures and we expect that the same must be
finalized to its logical conclusion. We further observe that no such
activity is to be carried out except in accordance with law.
                                                                                            WRIC No. 6677 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    6. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed
                                    of.



                                                      (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
                                    March 18, 2026
                                    Sumit S




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