The main legal point established in the judgment is that unauthorized construction and change of land use cannot be condoned under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The court emphasized the need to adhere to the Master Plan and statutory provisions, highlighting the restrictions on compounding and change of user.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the show cause notice dated 27. 4. 2005 (Annex. 21); earlier similar notice dated 18. 10. 2003 (Annex. 20); and further FOR direction to decide the applications dated 31. 3. 2000 and 1. 5. 2000 (Annex. 3 and 4) of the petitioners, for compounding the construction raised in contravention of the Sanction Plan and for permitting change of user of the property in dispute.

( 2 ) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner had purchased Property no. II/b-1, Nehru Nagar, District Ghaziabad, measuring 572. 40 sq. mtrs. vide Registered Sale deed dated 7. 10. 1983. Petitioners applied for sanction of the Plan for construction over the said land, and it was sanctioned by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (hereinafter called the authority) respondent No. 3 vide order dated 11. 11. 1983 for residential purpose. Petitioners raised constructions to a certain extent in addition to and in contravention of the Plan sanctioned by the Authority. The petitioners thereafter filed applications for change of user, i. e. from residential to commercial, and further to compound the construction raised by them in contravention of the Sanctioned Plan. The said applications were not dealt with and the authority has issued impugned notices for demolition of the construction raised in contravention of the Sanctioned Plan. Hence this petition.

( 3 ) SHRI Rajeev Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the State of Uttar pradesh approved the Bye-laws framed by the Authority on 29. 10. 1998 providing for permission to change of user and compounding of unauthorised development under the provisions of U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act ). In pursuance thereof, the Authority launched a Scheme known as Self Compounding Scheme 2000. Petitioners have filed two applications under the said Scheme. The Authority did not consider the same, rather issued the show cause notices for demolition. Petitioners have therefore urged that they had no efficacious alternative remedy available except to approach the Writ Court. It has been vehemently submitted by Shri Misra that so long as the representations are pending, there is no competence of the Authority concerned to issue the show cause notices under Sections 26, and 27 of the Act, and no action can be taken under Section 28 of the Act. The petitioners had been asked by the Respondent-Authority to deposit certain amount as the compounding fee which the petitioners deposited to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs, therefore, the Authority should be stopped from taking any further action pursuant to the notice under the said provisions of the Act or pass an order for demolition. The Authority has permitted similarly situated persons for conversion of construction use as well as it has also compounded their illegal constructions, and therefore, the petitioners cannot be given a hostile treatment. Petition deserves to be allowed.

( 4 ) ON the contrary, Shri C. K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State of Uttar pradesh and Shri A. K. Misra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have vehemently submitted that compounding is not permissible in contravention of the Master Plan. The State of Uttar Pradesh approved the Bye-laws, framed by the Authority, however, the said bye-laws also do not permit the relief sought herein. Section 16 of the Act prohibits any such action and no person can be permitted to raise construction in contravention of the sanctioned plan. Compounding of an offence is meant only for minor deviations and cannot be used for changing the nature of the property or changing its use. Change of user of the property is not permissible in contravention of the Master Plan. As the Authority has to take into consideration a large number of aspects, including environment, the comfort of life of other residents, this kind of compounding would amount