HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M.Katju, R.S.Tripathi
RANJIT SINGH
Versus
VICE-CHAIRMAN
Decided On : 28 August 2003
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13699 of 2002
mandamus - unauthorized construction - U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, Section 27(4), Section 37 - The court discussed the unauthorized construction made by the respondent, the specific bar to a suit against the order under Section 27, and directed the implementation of the order dated 8-1-2002.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a mandamus to implement an order directing the demolition of unauthorized construction made by the respondent. The respondent had sold the disputed property to another party.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit filed by the respondent was specifically barred, and the order of status quo passed in civil revision was illegal and without jurisdiction.
Issues: Unauthorized construction, suit maintainability, jurisdiction of the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was not maintainable due to the specific bar under Section 27 of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, and the order of status quo was illegal and without jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the Allahabad Development Authority was directed to implement the order dated 8-1-2002 forthwith.
By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to implement the order dated 8-1-2002 Annexure 4 to the writ petition passed by the respondent No. 2 and to get the unauthorized construction made by the respondent No. 3 Baijnath Maurya demolished. It has been mentioned that the respondent No. 3 has sold the disputed property to respondent No. 4. Sri A. K. Misra has appeared for the respondents 1 and 2 and has filed a counter- affidavit. The respondents No. 3 and 4 both have been served with notice of this petition and the respondent No. 4 has appeared through his Counsel Sri Vimlesh Srivastava and has filed counter- affidavit.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the house in Nazul Plot No. 7, Civil Station, Allahabad. The residential house of the petitioner is numbered as 7/2, Civil Station, Allahabad. The petitioner purchased free hold right in the said plot from the State Government through the District Magistrate, Allahabad vide registered deed dated 15-10-2000.
4. It is alleged in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the petitioners building was constructed in 1969 after getting the building plan approved by the Prescribed Authority. The plan was approved on 10-6-
1969 and permission to raise constructions was given by the same order. In respect of the first storey, sanction was given by the ADA on 20-6-2001.
5. It is alleged in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that Alkapuri and Aakashpuri colonies were constructed by the Allahabad Development Authority on Hastings Road Housing Scheme in plot No. 9 which is adjacent to plot No. 7 refrred to above. Apart from a large number of residential flats the Allahabad Development Authority constructed there 18 scooter and car garages on the ground floor and 18 servant quarters on the first floor. Out of the aforesaid 18 quarters, 12 are in one block and the remaining 6 are in another block.
6. It is alleged in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that for the use of 12 servant quarters situate in Block 1 a soak pit was constructed on the open land which was there on the northern side of the aforesaid quarters and it was connected with the nala running from east to west on Muir Road. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition it is alleged that another soak pit was on the open land which is in the western side of the Second Block consisting of six servant quarters for its use, and this soak pit was also connected with a nala adjacent to aforesaid plot No. 7 from south to north. The open space which was in between the aforesaid nala and the servant quarter was in the shape of a pakka lane. This open land was left for the purpose of cleaning the aforesaid soak pit.
7. It is alleged in paragraph 9 of the writ petition that the respondent No. 3 was an ex-employee of the Allahabad Development Authority and his son Sunil Kumar Maurya is an employee of Allahabad Development Authority. The respondent No. 3 and his son managed to get two sale deeds executed in their favour on 13-7-1999 and 3-11-2000 in respect of the aforesaid open land in which the soak pit was situated which was left for cleaning and maintenance of the aforesaid soak pit. After purchasing the said land they started raising constructions thereon without getting any plan sanctioned by the Allahabad Development Authority. The petitioner immediately made complaint against the unauthorized construction of the respondent No. 3 on the aforesaid land of public utility before the Vice-Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority vide Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition and again made a representation before the Chairman and Vice- Chairman of the Allahabad Development Authority on 5- 11-2001 vide Annexure 3 to the writ petition. It appears that the respondent No. 3 also moved an application for compounding of the unauthorized construction. Both the representations of the petitioner and compounding application filed by the r
AI
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.