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

2007 Supreme(All) 2177

[2007(9) ADJ 581 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND RAKESH SHARMA, JJ.
SYED MADADGAR HUSAIN RIZVI AND ANOTHER .......Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS .........Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25043 of 2007, decided on 18th August, 2007)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Ravi Kant, Shashi Nandan, Nikhil Agrawal and Vishnu Gupta for the Petitioners; V.B. Singh, Satish Chaturvedi, Vivek Verma, S.C. for the Respondents.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973—Section 32—Application under—Filed by petitioners—For compounding the unauthorised construction—Rejected vide order by Vice-Chairman of Allahabad Development Authority, who was the only Competent Authority to entertain and dispose of such an application—He exercises quasi-judicial powers—Once an appropriate decision is taken, as the Act does not provide for a review by same authority—Subsequent invitation to petitioners for reconsideration was an exercise in futility—As the Competent Authority becomes functus officio—Having no other independent source of power to either review or sit in appeal over the order of Vice-Chairman—Hence, the Court should not ask the authority to decide the representation without examining the merit of the case. [Paras 12, 13 and 14]

       (B) Review—A quasi-judicial authority—Vice-Chairman of Allahabad Development Authority—Not permitted to review its order—Unless it is so expressly conferred by the Statute itself. [Paras 13 and 14]

       (C) Administrative Order—It is settled law that even in administrative matters, reasons should be recorded—As it is incumbent upon the authorities to pass a speaking and reasoned order—An authority must pass a speaking and reasoned order—An Administrative Authority is bound to record reasons for reaching the conclusion. [Paras 19 to 23]

       (D) U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973—Sections 32, 28, 27 and 28-A—Applications under—For compounding the unauthorised construction—Rejected—Order records eight reasons for rejecting the application for compounding—Calculations made in the note sheet—Objections raised by petitioners with regard to basis of calculation have not been exactly dealt with and reasons have not been shown for rejecting the aforesaid calculation proposed by petitioners as incorrect—Petitioners have been deprived of effective hearing and considerations on their objections—Competent Authority shall proceed to decide objections by fixing a short date and take a follow up action immediately. [Para 34]

       

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioner No. 1, who is the landlord of the land situate at X-9, Civil Station, Sardar Patel Marg, Allahabad and petitioner No. 2, a builder and developer of the building raised on the said site, have approached this Court assailing the order dated 18.5.2007 passed by the Vice Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad (hereinafter called the ‘Development Authority’) rejecting the application for compounding of unauthorised constructions raised against the sanctioned map/plan over the plot in dispute and issuing a direction to the Zonal Officer under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the ‘Act 1973’) to take appropriate action against the petitioners.

2. The petitioner No. 1, owner of the aforesaid plot, i.e. X-9, Civil Station, Sardar Patel Marg, Allahabad, entered into a builder’s agreement with M/s. Tulsiani Construction & Developers Limited on 15.6.2004 for construction of a commercial-cum-residential complex at the said site. A building plan for construction of commercial-cum-residential complex was sanctioned by the Development Authority on 13.7.2004. It appears from the record that the petitioners raised unauthorised constructions over the said plot as the setback and parking area in the building are not in conformity with the sanctioned plan. The Development Authority issued notices under Sections 27/28 of the Act 1973 and they were asked to stop the construction work and were called upon to show cause before the appropriate authority. A revised plan seeking compounding of deviations from the original sanctioned plan/map was submitted by the petitioners before the Development Authority on 20.2.2006.

3. Here, it may be pertinent to mention that while hearing a Public Interest Litigation this Court in Writ Petition No. 2547 of 2005, Anand Mohan v. Union of India and others, on 6th March, 2006, passed a general order restraining the Development Authority from compounding constructions raised in deviation of the sanctioned plan. In between, a draft Master Plan for Allahabad had been submitted by the Authority, for approval before the Governor of the State of U.P., which stood approved vide order dated 12.7.2006 with immediate effect and the said new Master Plan is known as “Master Plan-2021.”

4. Application dated 20.2.2006 for compounding of the unauthorised constructions was rejected by the Vice Chairman of the Development Authority on 29.6.2006 and an order for demolishing the unauthorised and illegal construction was also issued on 3.7.2006. However, the order passed by this Court, on 6.3.2006 was modified on 3rd August, 2006 and the ban was lifted vide order dated 3rd August, 2006.

5. While entertaining an application filed by the present petitioners in the same Public Interest Litigation, this Court vide order dated 17.10.2006 directed the Development Authority to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners, for compounding the unauthorised constructions. Petitioners submitted their application alongwith a revised map on 14.11.2006 seeking compounding of the unauthorised constructions. Petitioners subsequently filed another application in the said Public Interest Litigation complaining that in spite of the order of the Court dated 17.10.2006, applications were not being considered and decided. This Court on 8th March, 2007 directed the Development Authority to decide it and communicate the order to the petitioners. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners received notice dated 9.3.2007 informing them that they had not acted upon the direction of the authorities for providing parking place as directed earlier and that their requests for compounding and approving the revised plan had already been rejected and order of demolition had already been passed on 30.7.2006. Further approaches were made by submitting applications and placing revised maps. Petitioners also filed Writ Petition No. 19486 of 2007, Shri Syed Madadg


















































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 Back to top