[2010(10) ADJ 217 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : FERDINO I. REBELLO, C.J. AND A.P. SAHI, J.
N.P. SINGH ….Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER …..Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36421 of 2009, decided on 29th July, 2010)
Result; Petition Dismissed.
Hon’ble Ferdino I. Rebello, C.J.—Rule. By consent heard forthwith, as the pleadings are complete.
2. The petitioner, a practicing Advocate, resident of Noida, has approached this Court by way of this petition and prayed that the petition may be treated as a public interest litigation.
3. It is the petitioner’s case that the action of respondent No. 2 in allowing the private builders/individuals/corporates/private companies/limited companies or their consortium to seek allotment of Group Housing Plots to raise construction thereon and to sell to the general public at higher price for their commercial gain, is contrary to the Scheme of the Act. The Authority under the Act was constituted not to benefit the private builders to multiply their income but to help the citizens to have their houses or flats at affordable rates. The Authority was created under the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘’Act’), which provides for constitution of an Authority for development of certain areas in the State into industrial and urban township and for matters connected therewith. The respondent No. 1 enjoys eminent domain over the land falling in the notified area of Noida and acquired the same for public purpose by following the procedure laid down under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to the petitioner, the respondents, in active connivance with private builders, have allowed them to exploit the real estate market in Noida by permitting the private builders to seek allotment of Group Housing Plots for their commercial gain. The respondents, in order to help private builders, are compromising/relaxing the building norms and development norms as envisaged in the Master Plan of Noida - 2021 without any authority and in contravention of Master Plan - 2021.
4. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the Scheme known as ‘’Scheme for Allotment of Group Housing Plots, Scheme Code GH - 2009 (II)’, whereby the private builders have been permitted to bid for large Group Housing Plots in Sectors 45, 121 and 137 by excluding others from participating in the bid.
5. The Authority, in exercise of powers conferred by the Act, has made Regulations for the purposes of proper planning and development of Noida, known as the ‘’New Okhla Industrial Development Area (Preparation and Finalization of the Plan) Regulations, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘’Regulations 1991'), which was notified in the Gazette of U.P. on 8.6.1991. Consequent to promulgation of Regulations 1991, the Authority was entrusted with the duty to prepare a plan and for that, the Authority employed a Committee of the School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi to prepare the Master Plan of Noida - 2021, which has been prepared. As per the development plan, according to the petitioner, the residential sectors are to be developed in varying densities. There are various use zones classified in seven categories, of which one is residential. The residential zone has been classified into 4 use zones, which are :
1. R1 - Low Density Residential upto 200 ppha.
2. R2 - Medium Density Residential above 200 upto 400 ppha.
3. R3 - High Density Residential above 400 ppha upto 600 ppha.
4. R4 - Special Development Area (SDA).
6. The petitioner has relied upon the report submitted by the Committee of the School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi. The Authority prepared the Master Plan - 2021 for Noida, which was approved by the Board in its meeting held on 18.2.2006. On promulgation of the Master Plan - 2021, the development has to be in accordance with the approved plan.
According to the petitioner, he does not have the details by which the private builders have been made eligible to seek allotment of Group Housing Plots in Noida, but if such a decision is taken, the same is illegal, unfair, a misuse and abuse of the powers of the respondents and the public office. It is a colourable exercise and frau
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.