R. R. K. TRIVEDI, M. KATJU, JJ.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for the relief to quash the relevant provision in Rule 1. 5 of part two of the Building Construction bye-laws of the respondent No. 1 by which it has been provided that the land having 200 sq. meters area or above shall alone be allowed for building construction in Civil Lines Zone of Allahabad, and for a mandamus to the respondents to accord sanction to the plan submitted by the petitioner.

( 2 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Amarjit Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. By order dated 6. 8. 1997, learned counsel for the respondents was granted time for filing counter-affidavit. However, no counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that writ petition may be heard and decided finally without counter-affidavit.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is an advocate practicing in this Court. On 28. 8. 1996 he purchased freehold land together with structures on it No. 3/a1, Drummond Road. Allahabad having an area of approximately 163. 5 sq. meters. A true copy of the sale deed is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The petitioner purchased the said property for constructing a new residential, house and chamber for his practice. On 18. 10. 1996, he submitted an application in the prescribed form before the respondents for approval of the map for making construction on the said land. It is stated in para 6 of the petition that this map is not being approved due to an arbitrary and illegal provision made in bye-law No. 1. 5 of part 2. 2 of the bye-laws relating to construction of houses according to which no land having less than 200 sq. meters in Civil Lines area can be permitted for construction. A true copy of the impugned bye-laws has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid bye-law contained in the Note under Rule 1. 5 is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India. It has been further submitted that under the same bye-laws in the note mentioned below the chart, minimum size of plot is 90 sq. meters in proposed residential areas, by public sector bodies. There is no legal and valid reason for having such a discriminatory provision.

( 5 ) IT has also been submitted that the petitioner has purchased the property after investing huge amount of hard earned savings, and if he is not allowed to construct residential house and chamber, it shall amount to depriving him of his land and he shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. On the land purchased, the structures were already existing and the petitioner is raising new construction in place of old rotten buildings. To maintain openness of the area, the petitioner may be required to leave set back on both sides. The respondents can only regulate constructions but they cannot impose a complete prohibition against raising constructions. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited our attention that in Civil Lines area there are a number of houses constructed in lesser areas with permission of respondents.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the object behind the impugned bye-laws is to maintain openness of the Civil Lines area, thus to prevent small structures. It has also been submitted that Civil Lines is a prime area of the city and special provisions are justified for maintaining its beauty and attraction.

( 7 ) WE have thoroughly considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned bye-laws. The impugned bye-law is bad in law as it contains a total prohibition against construction over a plot in Civil Lines area which is of an area less than 200 sq. meters. The owner of a plot normally has an unquestionable right to construct over the land according to his requirement. This important civil right of enjoyment of property can only

Click Here to Read the rest of this document