The Prescribed Authority cannot refuse permission to develop land based on a proposed Master Plan when there is no sanctioned Master Plan at the time of the application.

V.K. Khanna, J.

1. According to the petitioners they submitted an application under Section 7 of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for permission to develop a commercial-cum-residential colony in the name of 'Banwari Batika' on the land situated near Kamlila ground at Delhi-Meerut Road, in Meerut comprising Khasra Nos. 1883, 1884, 1885, 1886, 1891 to 1896. On 2nd February, 1973 the aforesaid application was returned by the Prescribed Authority along with the lay out plan as unapproved with the objection that the site in the lay-out-plan was in the area of T-3 and C-3 land uses of which was confined to Bus-Stand and commercial purposes under the Master Plan for Meerut. The petitioners thereafter on 22nd February, 1973 made an application with the prayer that in the lay-out plan submitted by them markings and locations of the roads and the area T-3 and C-3 may be made and the map be sanctioned. On 24-12-1973 the Prescribed Authority informed the petitioners that the map which has been submitted cannot be approved unless the Transport Department makes alignments of the roads of the colony with the roads of the Transport Nagar. On 8th February, 1974 an application was again made to the Prescribed Authority stating that the sanction of the plan has been pending with him since a long time and that the same be returned to the petitioner as duly sanctioned. According to the petitioners as no reply was received from the Prescribed Authority a notice under Section 7 (4) of the Act was sent on 20-12-1974 with the prayer that the order of sanction along with the sanctioned map be sent within 15 days so that the draft agreement of the estimate for development may also be submitted for approval.

2. It appears that ultimately on 12th June, 1975 the Prescribed Authority approved the plan partially after laying down certain conditions which were mainly to the effect that in the lay-out plan on the areas marked as T-3 and C-3 roads, parks etc. shall be demarcated in accordance with the land use. Feeling aggrieved an appeal was filed under Sec. 15 of the Act to the Controlling Authority, who by his order dated 12-2-1976 held that the Prescribed Authority has not granted the sanction in accordance with the directions issued under the Act and that the plan could not be deemed to have been approved under Sec. 7 (4) of the Act. The Controlling Authority directed that action should be taken in accordance with the direction No. 10 and the petitioner should be directed to make necessary modifications and a report should be obtained from the Mukhya Nagar Evam Gram Niyojak and the petitioner should be directed to submit the agreement for development of the colony on the amended approved plan and the petitioners should be restrained from making any development work. A revision was thereafter filed to the State Government under Sec. 15-A of the Act which was disposed of on 29-7-1978 and the revision was dismissed. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the three orders of the Prescribed Authority, dated 12-6-75, the Controlling Authority dated 12-2-1976 and of the State Government dated 29th July, 1978.

The impugned orders have been challenged firstly on the ground that because of the provisions of Sec. 7 (4) of the Act the Prescribed Authority was guilty of omission in refusing to grant permission upon a notice given by the petitioners and in law no order could be passed by the Prescribed-Authority after the expiry of 30 days. Secondly, it has been urged that at the time when the plan was submitted by the petitioner there was no sanctioned Master Plan for the city of Meerut and thus the petitioner was entitled to get sanction in respect of the entire area and the Prescribed Authority could not grant permission only in respect of part of the area excluding area T-3 and C-3 as being earmarked for Bus-stand and commercial purposes. Thirdly it has been urged that the Controlling