High Court · 2025

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of the total area of 2.9490 hectares of the said plot, an area measuring approximately 2.874 hectares was acquired by the State Government through notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purposes of Planned Industrial Development. However, the remaining 0.0754 hectare was excluded from the acquisition and continues to be recorded in the name of the erstwhile tenure holders, Chaman Singh and his mother Santara Devi. It is stated that the said land was subsequently sold through a chain of registered sale deeds, ultimately culminating in the petitioner acquiring 80 square yards of land through a registered sale deed dated 03.06.2024. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a communication dated 30.01.2024 addressed to the Additional Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Gautam Budh Nagar. The said communication indicates that, in view of the provisions of Section 2(1) of the U.P. Kshetra Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (as amended in 1994), the village falls within the definition of a “rural area,” and District Panchayats are empowered to approve building maps for lands situated in rural areas that have not been acquired by development authorities such as NOIDA or Greater NOIDA. It is further submitted that even if a village is partially acquired, maps for unacquired plots can be sanctioned by the District Panchayat, as these areas continue to fall within the jurisdiction of rural areas as per the 1961 Act. Accordingly, the competent authority proceeded to accord sanction of the building map in respect of the petitioner's land, which lies within the territorial jurisdiction of the rural area and was not acquired by the development authority. Thereafter, mutation in the revenue records was carried out in favour of the petitioner. In this backdrop, reliance has also been placed upon the revenue entries for the years 1425–1430 Fasli. It is further submitted that the petitioner constructed a residential house on the said land during June–July 2024 and has been residing there with his family ever since. It is asserted that the petitioner does not own any other residential accommodation. Despite this, the respondent authority is allegedly threatening to demolish the petitioner’s house without issuing any notice or initiating any legal proceedings. A representation dated 05.06.2025 was submitted to the respondents, but no relief was granted. In these circumstances, it is submitted that this Court may be pleased to grant appropriate relief to the petitioner.

4. Shri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, and Mrs. Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel for the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA), have resisted the prayer made in the writ petition. They contend that the land in question falls within the territorial limits of GNIDA and is governed by the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. It is submitted that, in terms of Section 12A of the said Act, 1976 any construction within the notified industrial development area requires prior approval from the competent authority under the Act, 1976. In the present case, it is undisputed that the petitioner has not obtained any such permission from GNIDA. Therefore, the construction raised by the petitioner is in violation of the statutory provisions, and no protection can be claimed on that basis.

5. Considering the factual situation, we find that the entire claim is set up on the basis of the alleged sale deed dated 03.06.2024. A bare perusal of the said sale deed indicates that the land in question is classified as agricultural land. There is no mention of any existing construction in the said document. On the contrary, it is admitted that the construction was carried out subsequent to the execution of the sale deed. Even if the petitioner seeks to rely upon the communication dated 30.01.2024 to claim that the area falls within a rural zone, the argument is misplaced. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the petitioner obtained a sanctioned building plan from the competent authority prior to raising the construction. Moreover, any such approval, even if claimed, would be rendered invalid in light of the provisions of Section 12A of the Act, 1976, which explicitly bars the jurisdiction of Panchayats over industrial townships notified under Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India. Section 12A of the Act, 1976, which is reproduced below: "12A. No Panchayat for Industrial Township. - Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in any Uttar Pradesh Act, where an industrial development area or any part thereof is specified to be an industrial township under the proviso to clause (1) of Article 243-Q of the Constitution, such industrial development area or part thereof, if included in a Panchayat area, shall, with effect from the date of notification made under the said proviso, stand excluded from such Panchayat area and no Panchayat shall be constituted for such industrial development area or part thereof under the United Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 or the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961, as the case may be, and any Panchayat constituted for such industrial development area or part thereof before the date of such notification, shall cease to exist. Explanation. - The expression "Panchayat and Panchayat area" shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in Part IX of the Constitution.] [Substituted by U. P. Act No. 18 of 1995, Section 2 (w.e.f. 15-5-1995).]"

6. In view of the above, the relief sought by the petitioner is wholly misconceived, as the construction was raised without prior approval from GNIDA and in contravention of Section 12A of the Act, 1976. No vested right can accrue from an unauthorised act. Hence, we are not in a position to accord any reprieve to the petitioner. However, it is open to the petitioner to inovke the remedy as contemplated in law.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 NLY NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of the total area of 2.9490 hectares of the said plot, an area measuring approximately 2.874 hectares was acquired by the State Government through notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purposes of Planned Industrial Development. However, the remaining 0.0754 hectare was excluded from the acquisition and continues to be recorded in the name of the erstwhile tenure holders, Chaman Singh and his mother Santara Devi. It is stated that the said land was subsequently sold through a chain of registered sale deeds, ultimately culminating in the petitioner acquiring 80 square yards of land through a registered sale deed dated 03.06.2024. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a communication dated 30.01.2024 addressed to the Additional Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Gautam Budh Nagar. The said communication indicates that, in view of the provisions of Section 2(1) of the U.P. Kshetra Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (as amended in 1994), the village falls within the definition of a “rural area,” and District Panchayats are empowered to approve building maps for lands situated in rural areas that have not been acquired by development authorities such as NOIDA or Greater NOIDA. It is further submitted that even if a village is partially acquired, maps for unacquired plots can be sanctioned by the District Panchayat, as these areas continue to fall within the jurisdiction of rural areas as per the 1961 Act. Accordingly, the competent authority proceeded to accord sanction of the building map in respect of the petitioner's land, which lies within the territorial jurisdiction of the rural area and was not acquired by the development authority. Thereafter, mutation in the revenue records was carried out in favour of the petitioner. In this backdrop, reliance has also been placed upon the revenue entries for the years 1425–1430 Fasli. It is further submitted that the petitioner constructed a residential house on the said land during June–July 2024 and has been residing there with his family ever since. It is asserted that the petitioner does not own any other residential accommodation. Despite this, the respondent authority is allegedly threatening to demolish the petitioner’s house without issuing any notice or initiating any legal proceedings. A representation dated 05.06.2025 was submitted to the respondents, but no relief was granted. In these circumstances, it is submitted that this Court may be pleased to grant appropriate relief to the petitioner.

4. Shri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, and Mrs. Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel for the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA), have resisted the prayer made in the writ petition. They contend that the land in question falls within the territorial limits of GNIDA and is governed by the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. It is submitted that, in terms of Section 12A of the said Act, 1976 any construction within the notified industrial development area requires prior approval from the competent authority under the Act, 1976. In the present case, it is undisputed that the petitioner has not obtained any such permission from GNIDA. Therefore, the construction raised by the petitioner is in violation of the statutory provisions, and no protection can be claimed on that basis.

5. Considering the factual situation, we find that the entire claim is set up on the basis of the alleged sale deed dated 03.06.2024. A bare perusal of the said sale deed indicates that the land in question is classified as agricultural land. There is no mention of any existing construction in the said document. On the contrary, it is admitted that the construction was carried out subsequent to the execution of the sale deed. Even if the petitioner seeks to rely upon the communication dated 30.01.2024 to claim that the area falls within a rural zone, the argument is misplaced. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the petitioner obtained a sanctioned building plan from the competent authority prior to raising the construction. Moreover, any such approval, even if claimed, would be rendered invalid in light of the provisions of Section 12A of the Act, 1976, which explicitly bars the jurisdiction of Panchayats over industrial townships notified under Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India. Section 12A of the Act, 1976, which is reproduced below: "12A. No Panchayat for Industrial Township. - Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in any Uttar Pradesh Act, where an industrial development area or any part thereof is specified to be an industrial township under the proviso to clause (1) of Article 243-Q of the Constitution, such industrial development area or part thereof, if included in a Panchayat area, shall, with effect from the date of notification made under the said proviso, stand excluded from such Panchayat area and no Panchayat shall be constituted for such industrial development area or part thereof under the United Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 or the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961, as the case may be, and any Panchayat constituted for such industrial development area or part thereof before the date of such notification, shall cease to exist. Explanation. - The expression "Panchayat and Panchayat area" shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in Part IX of the Constitution.] [Substituted by U. P. Act No. 18 of 1995, Section 2 (w.e.f. 15-5-1995).]"

6. In view of the above, the relief sought by the petitioner is wholly misconceived, as the construction was raised without prior approval from GNIDA and in contravention of Section 12A of the Act, 1976. No vested right can accrue from an unauthorised act. Hence, we are not in a position to accord any reprieve to the petitioner. However, it is open to the petitioner to inovke the remedy as contemplated in law.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 NLY NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad