WRIC/37163/2026 of MRS. ALKA AND 2 OTHERS Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS on 15 September 2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that, pursuant to the brochure issued by OMEX Company with regard to certain housing suites, the petitioners purchased flats. The representation made to the petitioners, along with other purchasers, was that 60% of the land would be utilised for sports and recreational facilities. Subsequently, when the construction activities of the builder changed and the use of the said land was sought to be converted for commercial purposes, the petitioners submitted a representation before the Greater Noida Authorities on 19.08.2026.

3. The sole grievance of the petitioners, as of now, is that their representation has not been considered. Learned counsel appearing for the Greater Noida Authorities, Ms. Ishita Sand, Advocate, holding brief for Ms. Anjali Upadhyay, submits that the objections raised by the petitioners shall be duly considered in accordance with law within a period of one month, without entering into the merits of the case.

4. We are of the view that the objections/representation of the petitioners dated 19.08.2026 shall be considered and decided in accordance with law by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. September 16, 2026 vijay krishna Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Brijesh Kumar, Saurabh Tripathi, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C. (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) Mrs. Alka And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KRISHNA JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad