Allahabad High Court
SWAPNIL PRAKASHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is not maintainable and is dismissed, permitting the Authority to proceed under the Act.
Summary
The petitioner, Swapnil Prakash, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority not to interfere with his peaceful possession of a house in Bulandshahr. The petitioner argued that the Authority's demolition proceedings were premature and that a notice under Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, was required. The respondents contended that the petition was not maintainable because the proceedings were still pending and that the Authority was lawfully empowered under the Act. The Court examined the factual claim and the statutory framework, noting that the Authority could proceed in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition and disposed of it, allowing the Authority to continue its actions as per the Act.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition seeking a mandamus to restrain the Authority from interfering with possession is maintainable at the pre‑final stage of demolition proceedings
- Whether the Authority is required to serve a notice under Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 before proceeding
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- possession
- industrial development authority
- premature petition
- Section 10 notice
- Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 7796 of 2026
Swapnil Prakash
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjay Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vinayak Nath Singh
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms.
Uttarra Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents; and Shri Vinayak Nath Singh, Advocate, who has accepted
notice on behalf of respondent No. 3, the Chief Executive Officer, Yamuna
Expressway Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar (for
short, "Authority").
2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following principal
relief:
"(i) to issue a writ of mandamus command the respondents forthwith to
not interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner's house which is
situated in part of total area of 0.8210 hectare of the Khasara No. 258
Khata no. 257 Khata no. 8 situated at village Amipur Bangar. Tehsil
Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr till the disposal of representation
dated 24.10.2025 respondent No. 3 Chief Executive Officer, Yamuna
Expressway, Industrial Development Authority. "
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the contesting-respondents has
raised an objection qua the maintainability of the instant proceeding on the
ground that the proceedings have yet to be finalized and, as such, the same is
premature. He further submits that the Authority has been constituted under
the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act 1976, and in case the
Authority proceeds to carry out demolition proceedings, a notice under
Section 10 of the Act shall be served upon the petitioner.
WRIC No. 7796 of 2026
2
4. Considering the factual situation and the claim as set up by the petitioner,
we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, it is observed that
the Authority shall be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.
5. The writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
May 7, 2026
A.K.Srivastava
Digitally signed by :-
ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…