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

2009 Supreme(All) 3726

[2010(6) ADJ 452 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : R.K. AGRAWAL AND MRS. JAYASHREE TIWARI, JJ.
Smt. RACHNA RANI ...Petitioner
Versus
MUZAFFARNAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38364 of 2009, decided on 7th December, 2009)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Pramod Kumar Jain, Amitabh Agarwal and Amit Gupta for the Petitioner; Rajesh Kumar Pandey, C.S.C. for the Respondents.

Headnote:U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973—Sections 44 and 15—General Clauses Act, 1897—Section 23—Sanctioned map—Rejection of—Legality—Contention of petitoner that by impugned order respondent No. 1 has rejected the sanctioned map by holding that it is not in consonance with law—Whether Bye-laws of 2008 as adopted by MDA were widely circulated by way of notice (No)—Due compliance of provisions of 1973 Act and 1897 Act have not been made by MDA—Notice has not been widely circulated—And neither any objection or suggestion have been received from any persons affected—It could not be shown that even concerned Department itself was aware of the amended bye-laws—Held, that the contention of petitioner that map was passed in accordance with provisions of the rules appeared to be sustainable. [Paras 14 to 19]

       Result; Petition Allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.7.2009 passed by respondent No. 1.

2. In short, the contention of the petitioner is that vide order dated 13.7.2009 respondent No. 1 has rejected the sanctioned map plan dated 6.2.2009 holding that it is not in consonance with law. Petitioner is the holder of plot at Mohalla Arya Puri, Muzaffarnagar and wanted to construct a building for commercial use and hence with this view in mind she applied for sanction of the map to respondent No. 1 and submitted the Map No. 13/09 for the proposed building. The aforesaid map was sanctioned by the respondent vide order dated 6.2.2009 which is annexed as annexure-1 to the writ petition. The required charges Rs. 85,057 were deposited by the petitioner for construction of the commercial complex as aforesaid, copy of the receipt is annexed as annexure-2 to the writ petition. The aforesaid map was sanctioned for basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor. The endorsement made by the authorities is annexed as annexure-3 to the writ petition.

3. The map was sanctioned by the Muzaffarnagar Development Authority after due verification and there was no misrepresentation or concealment of any fact on the part of the petitioner. The aforesaid commercial complex structural design was worked out by approved Structural Engineer, the report of whom is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition.

4. The Nursing Home by the name of Rama Krishna Hospital is adjacent to the disputed property and both sides of the plot of the petitioner they have their plot on one side and they have constructed their nursing home without following the norms as laid down by the Muzaffarnagar Development Authority and huge illegal construction made by them. The owner of the aforesaid Nursing Home wanted to purchase the plot of the petitioner and factually they are behind the scene and they do not like the construction of the petitioner’s complex, hence they made several complaints to the M.D.A. about the construction of the Plot.

5. The Suit No. 486 of 2009 was filed by one Sunil Chaudhary, annexure-5 is annexed herewith as the photostat copy of the map in which the notices were issued. Against which petitioner filed a writ petition which was dismissed on 11.5.2009 as not maintainable. Later on, injunction application was also dismissed by the Court below. The rejection order is annexed as annexure-6 to the writ petition. The said suit is still pending. The basement of the petitioner’s complex has completed according to the sanctioned map as well as the first floor is also constructed. The Muzaffarnagar Development Authority also obstructed and stopped the construction of the petitioner. It was pointed out by the petitioner that vide order dated 12.5.2009 the permission was accorded, true copy of which is annexed as annexure-7 to the writ petition. On 29.5.2009 the sanctioned map of the petitioner was cancelled without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, though the petitioner’s major part of the construction was completed in accordance with the map previously sanctioned. The police was given intimation, directing the petitioner to stop the further construction. The cancellation of the previously sanctioned map was absolutely illegal, arbitrary and without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the map was cancelled at the behest of the Pooja Chaudhary and others. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31080 of 2009 and the Hon’ble High Court on 26.6.2009 passed an order, staying the operation of the order dated 29.5.2009, wherein the order was passed as follows :

“The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his sanctioned map has been cancelled without giving him any opportunity of hearing. Hence in connected writ petition No. 31080 of 2009, the Hon’ble High Court di


























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
whatsapp-icon Back to top