SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(All) 224

OM PRAKASH, M.KATJU
D. D. VYAS – Appellant
Versus
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, GHAZIABAD – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
R.G.PADIA, SHITLA PRASAD

OM PRAKASH, J.


( 1 ) THIS writ petition is an apt example as to how the statutory object to secure preservation of environment and development of the residential colonies shown in the master plan, sought 19 be achieved by the State of Uttar Pradesh under the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (the Act briefly) is defeated by the authorities, who lack dynamism, aestheticism and enthusiasm for development, though assigned the developmental duties.

( 2 ) THE Act, as the preamble shows, was enacted to provide for the development of certain areas of Uttar Pradesh according to plan and for matters ancillary thereto. The growth in Uttar Pradesh before this enactment was quite haphazard and, therefore, the Government felt that in the developing areas of the State of Uttar Pradesh the problems of town planning and urban development need to be tackled resolutely. As existing local bodies and other authorities in spite of their best efforts were inadequate to cope with these problems to the desired extent, the State government in order to bring about improvement in the hopeless situation considered it advisable that in such developing areas Development Authorities patterned on the






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top