Allahabad High Court
WRIC/40114/2026 of KISHAN AND 2 OTHERS Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS on 30 September 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 40114 of 2026 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 40114 of 2026
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 18.09.2026 issued by the respondent No.3 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition).
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 and 3 not to demolish the house of the petitioners in respect of land in Khata No. 278 Khasra No. 467 area 0.5000 Hectares situated at Village Bhaipur Brahmnan Tehsil Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to pay the compensation to the petitioners."
2. This writ petition has been filed against the notice dated 18.09.2026 which has been annexed at page no. 25 of the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioners have approached this Court. From the perusal of the notice it is evident that the petitioners were required to appear before the respondent no.3 on 01.10.2026 at 02:00 PM and explain as to why the constructions in question should not be demolished by the authority and the cost thereof recovered from the petitioners.
3. If that is the case, we are of the view that the writ petition is premature. If the petitioners are so advised, then as per the notice dated 18.09.2026, the petitioners may appear before the concerned authority on the date fixed Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Mishra, Shivam Tiwari, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : Aditya Bhushan Singhal, C.S.C. Kishan And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
along with their explanation.
4. Under such circumstances, no interference is warranted.
5. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
6. This order was passed in the presence of Sri Aditya Bhushan Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 2 and 3. October 1, 2026 M.S. Ansari WRIC No. 40114 of 2026 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD SAQIB ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad