SUKHVEER AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UP AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 9993 of 2024

Sukhveer And 4 Others
                                                          .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

State Of Up And 2 Others
                                                        .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)      : Anil Kumar Dubey, Prabha Shanker
                                 Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : C.S.C., Jagannath Maurya, Ravi
                                 Prakash Pandey

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

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
G.C. Saxena, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri
J.N. Maurya, learned counsel for the Development Authority.

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred praying inter alia for
following relief :-

     "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
     commanding the Authorities to ensure the respondent-payment
     of compensation/ award for the land belongs to the petitioners
     bearing Khasra Nos. 107, 126, 131, 141, 23 and 19 situated in
     Village-Inayatpur and Khasra Nos.57, 74 and 250 situated in
     Village-Sadat Nagar Ikala, Tehsil and District-Ghaziabad as
     per new Act, 2013, which is under the DPR scheme or de-
     notified the land in question, which is under the clutch of DPR
     for the sake of Hi-Tech Township City, Ghaziabad.

     (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
     commanding the respondents to decide the Objection filed by
     the petitioners dated 11.11.2023, which is pending before
     them."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, the petitioner
had invoked the writ jurisdiction by preferring a petition having Writ C
                                                         WRIC No. 9993 of 2024
                                2


No. 5673 of 2020, "Jagveer Singh and 5 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5
others" wherein order dated 02.12.2019 passed by the Ghaziabad
Development Authority through its Vice Chairman was challenged and
further prayer was made for a direction to the respondent Authority to
permit the petitioners to develop their lands according to their own free
will and make free land of the petitioner from the notification/planning of
the Hi-Tech city. The Division Bench vide order dated 17.02.2020 had
disposed of the said petition and had accorded leave to the petitioners to
move a fresh application before the Authority for redressal of their
grievances. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this backdrop, submits
that the objection of the petitioners and other farmers were not considered
by the respondent Authority and in fact, the same has been rejected
simply on the ground that it was not be preferred for challenging the
D.P.R./map (talpat manchitra) of the project.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though in the
similar circumstances, various orders had been passed but for either one
reason or the other, the claim of the petitioners till date has not been
redressed. Even the developer has also approached to the State
Government for redressal of his grievance. Learned counsel for the
petitioners further submits that the first petitioner is suffering from cancer
but till date, respondents have neither allowed the petitioners to utilize
their holdings nor they have permitted to carry out any development over
the property in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners in this
backdrop submits that the first petitioner had approached to the Apex
Court for redressal of his grievance and considering the ailment of first
petitioner, a direction was issued for deciding the matter expeditiously.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the right, title and
claim of the petitioners cannot be denied merely on the ground that under
some policy of Hi-Tech City, the rights have been conferred in favour of
the developer. He further submits that the grievance of the petitioners
must be examined by the Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban
Planning Department, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow as the petitioners are
having right to press the relief before the Revisional Authority under
Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

5. Considering the relief as prayed for, we expect that some decision is to
                                                                                       WRIC No. 9993 of 2024
                                                                 3


                                    be taken by the first respondent expeditiously preferably within three
                                    months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. We
                                    also direct the Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority to
                                    ensure that all the comments must be sent within three weeks to the
                                    Revisional Authority in order to facilitate the parties.

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



                                                     (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
                                    March 23, 2026
                                    Sumit S




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