BHAGIRATH vs STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS — WRIC/10077/2026

Disposed: -- on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UPHC011454082026

Filing Number

WRIC/

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

WRIC/10077/2026

Registration Date

13-Mar-2026

Judge

Mahesh Chandra Tripathi , Kunal Ravi Singh

Coram

Mahesh Chandra Tripathi , Kunal Ravi Singh

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ( 340700 )

Sub-Category

Miscellaneous ( 90 )

Judicial Branch

Civil WRITS

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--

Last updated 30-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BHAGIRATH

    Adv. AJAY SINGH YADAV,YATINDRA,YATINDRA, ,YATINDRA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

    Adv. ,ANJALI UPADHYA,C.S.C. 1123

  2. 2.THE GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

    Adv. C.S.C. ANJALI UPADHYA

  3. 3.THE TEHSILDAR / NOMINEE COMPETENT AUTHORITY

    Adv. C.S.C. ANJALI UPADHYA

  4. 4.THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

    Adv. C.S.C. ANJALI UPADHYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,kunal Ravi SinghView PDF

    Case Summary: WRIC 10077/2026 The High Court of Allahabad allowed Bhagirath's writ petition against GNIDA, directing it to deliver possession and execute a lease deed for the allotted plot (0.085 hectares in Village Itahara) within four months. The Court found that although the petitioner was allotted land under GNIDA's lease-back policy on 06.09.2012, the authority had failed to fulfill its obligation for over a decade. The Court rejected GNIDA's excuse of non-availability of developed land, holding that indefinite inaction cannot be permitted, and alternatively directed GNIDA to allot an alternative plot if any impediment exists with the original plot. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WRIC/10077/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WRIC 10077/2026 The High Court of Allahabad allowed Bhagirath's writ petition against GNIDA, directing it to deliver possession and execute a lease deed for the allotted plot (0.085 hectares in Village Itahara) within four months. The Court found that although the petitioner was allotted land under GNIDA's lease-back policy on 06.09.2012, the authority had failed to fulfill its obligation for over a decade. The Court rejected GNIDA's excuse of non-availability of developed land, holding that indefinite inaction cannot be permitted, and alternatively directed GNIDA to allot an alternative plot if any impediment exists with the original plot. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case