By the Court.—We have heard Shri Umesh Narain Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Nikhil Agrawal for the petitioners. Shri B.B. Paul assisted by Shri A.B. Paul appears for Allahabad Development Authority. Shri S.D. Singh appears for respondent No. 7. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 by Shri Ashok Pandey.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Vice Chairman of the Allahabad Development Authority dated 17.6.2009 by which in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court on 26.7.2007 in Writ Petition No. 33846 of 2007 the building plan for multistoried building approved on 3.8.2002 for constructing flats on X/2, Civil Station, Sardar Patel Marg was cancelled with directions that since the flats constructed on the building have been occupied and purchased by individuals, who cannot be found to be at fault, a fresh compounding plan be submitted by Smt. Kiran Bir, who is owner of the entire plot area of 1796.05 sq. mtrs. The order also directs that since the petitioner has constructed shops in place of godowns in the basement, which cannot be compounded, the shops are liable to be proceeded for sealing and demolition, in accordance with law.

3. Late Smt. Kiran Bir was the lessee of the land. She entered into an agreement with petitioners for developing the land for which she has applied for conversion of 1810 sq. mtrs. into freehold. The parties agreed for constructions on 1796.05 sq. mtrs. of land to which Shri Pradeep Bir and Shri Sandeep Bir sons of Smt. Kiran Bir were confirming parties and had signed on the agreement for development of the land. A building plan was submitted for construction of three storied building with flats with ground coverage of 537.50 sq. mtrs. and with basement (godown). The building plan provided for front setbacks of 9 mtr., rear set back of 9 mtrs., side setbacks of 5 mtrs. and parking area of 336 sq. mtr.

4. The petitioner as developer of the land started and completed constructions in the year 2005.

5. A notice was issued by the Allahabad Development Authority on 14.12.2004 after which an order was passed under Section 28 (2) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 to stop the constructions to which objections were filed by the petitioner. An application was made by him for compounding with a compounding plan alongwith a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- as advance compounding fees.

6. The order of the Zonal Officer, Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad dated 6.7.2007, rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking compounding of the unauthorized constructions and his subsequent order dated 9.7.2007, was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 33846 of 2007, on the grounds that the compounding plan had received consideration for which an amount of Rs. 9,39,789/- was quantified as compounding fees for compounding the constructions. The order, however, was not communicated to the petitioner and instead the compounding plan was rejected.

7. This Court considered the grounds raised in the writ petition and decided the writ petition with directions to give fresh notice to the petitioner within one week and to decide the case by speaking and reasoned order within a period of four weeks. The relevant part of the directions given by the Court in disposing of the writ petition are quoted as below :

“The aforesaid discussions make it crystal clear that the case has a chequered history and it is not evident as to whether the application submitted by the petitioner for compounding the construction raised in contravention of the sanctioned plan/unauthorized construction has been accepted or rejected. Photo copies of the orders passed by the Development Authority reveal both ways. The order impugned has been passed giving an impression that it is still open to the respondent authorities to consider the application further for compounding the unauthorized construction within permissible limits. For that purpose, the