Subhash Chandra v. Dubey
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Considering the factual situation and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that, in case the petitioner submits a detailed representation before the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA Authority, the same shall be…
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA).
This writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following relief: "1. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 not to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land Khasra No. 819-M area 0.3796 Hectare situated in the village Sorkha Jahidabad, Pargana and Tahsil Dadri District Gautam Budh Nagar in due course of law, so that justice may be done. "
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is the recorded tenure holder of the aforesaid Gata No. 819-M. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, dated 22.05.2025. It is submitted that after due demarcation on the spot, actual possession was handed over by the revenue officials, and a memo of possession has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner is a recorded tenure holder and the kurra 2 WRIC No. 36846 of 2025 bandi has also been finalized, the NOIDA Authority has no right to interfere with his peaceful possession. He further states that the petitioner does not intend to raise any construction over the disputed land without following due procedure under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976; therefore, his lawful rights cannot be infringed.
Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2 – NOIDA, resists the aforesaid relief and submits that it is an admitted position that the village in question falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the NOIDA Authority. He states that, at this stage, he is not in a position to confirm whether the land in question has been acquired or not, but fairly adds that since heavy reliance has been placed upon the proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the Authority shall examine the matter and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.
Operative part
Considering the factual situation and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that, in case the petitioner submits a detailed representation before the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA Authority, the same shall be considered and decided by the said Authority expeditiously, in accordance with law. October 29, 2025 NLY (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.