Back
2017 Supreme(All) 805
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
TARUN AGARWALA AND PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI, JJ.
AJAI NARAIN AGARWAL - Petitioner
Versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (CITY) ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS - Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44822 of 2013
Decided On : 24th July, 2017)
Headnote:Sarais Act, 1867—Section 13—U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973—Sections 56, 26, 27 or 28-A, 2(c) and 2(b)—Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Order 48, Rule 9—Marriage Hall—Registration—Legality of—Cancellation of Registration—Challenge against—G.O. directed the Development Authorities to identify places for construction of marriage halls—Respondent No. 3 is running a marriage hall in a residential area—Purpose of registration under 1867 Act is to regulate the haphazard growth of marriage halls which were coming up in every corner of city with impunity—Admittedly respondent No. 3 had never applied for sanction of a marriage hall from the Development Authority—No map has been sanctioned by authority—Respondent No. 3 was running a marriage hall in gross violation of Master Plan and terms and conditions mentioned in 2012 Upvidhi as well as Sections 14 and 15 of 1973 Act—In absence of any sanctioned plan, competent authority under Sarais Act was not empowered to register a marriage hall in favour of respondent No. 3—Impugned order recalling its earlier order by which the authority had cancelled the registration certificate of respondent No. 3 under 1867 Act, held illegal. [Paras 19 to 55]
Result; Petition Allowed.
Case of Petitioner:
Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The present writ petition has been filed for the quashing of the order dated 23.5.2013 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (City) Allahabad by which the authority recalled its earlier order dated 26.4.2011 by which it cancelled the registration granted to respondent No. 3 under the Sarais Act, 1867.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that respondent No. 3 has a residential house on plot No. 32, George Town, Allahabad and started constructions for running a marriage hall on the vacant land on the western side of his residential house in the name and style of Numani Garden Guest House.
3. The petitioner made a complaint on 20.8.2010 before the Additional District Magistrate (City) praying that respondent No. 3 should be restrained from running a marriage hall. On this application, the Additional District Magistrate issued a notice dated 8.9.2010 to respondent No. 3 to show-cause as to why he was running a marriage hall without it being registered under the Sarais Act. Based on this notice, respondent No. 3 filed an application dated 16.9.2010 before the District Magistrate for registration of his marriage hall in the name of Nomani Garden under the Sarais Act. When the petitioner came to know about the application being filed by respondent No. 3, the petitioner filed an objection again contending that the running of the marriage house would cause noise pollution and other nuisances, specially contending violation of Rule 3(5) of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
4. Without considering and dealing with the objections, the Additional District Magistrate (City) passed an order dated 7.1.2011 registering the marriage house of respondent No. 3 under the Sarais Act. According to the petitioner, this order was passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and without considering his objections.
5. On 30.1.2001, the marriage hall was used for a wedding and all the nuisances as feared by the petitioner came true. There was loud music, which continued till the wee hours of the morning. The road was used for parking of vehicles, which led to congestion and traffic jams. The petitioner protested and made a complaint to the authority and also lodged a First Information Report on 2.2.2011. An objection dated 31.1.2011 was filed before the Additional District Magistrate for the cancellation of the registration. Based on this complaint, the Additional District Magistrate again issued a notice to respondent No. 3 to show-cause as to why the registration should not be cancelled for violating the terms and conditions of the registration certificate. The authority, after due consideration, issued an order dated 26.4.2011 cancelling the registration granted under the Sarais Act on the ground that the marriage hall was in the residential area and that land use had not been changed. Further, the terms and conditions of the registration certificate was violated with impunity.
6. Respondent No. 3, being aggrieved by the decision of the Additional District Magistrate, filed writ petition No. 25679 of 2011, which was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 27.5.2011 on the pretext of availing an alternative remedy. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 filed a review application on 18.8.2011 for recall of the cancellation order dated 26.4.2011, which review application was rejected by the authority by its order dated 24.10.2011. The respondent No. 3 did not question the order and consequently the cancellation order dated 26.4.2011 and the order passed on the review application dated 24.10.2011 became final.
7. After six months, respondent No. 3 approached the State Minister, Sri Azam Khan. On this representation, a recommendation was also made by a local member of the Legislative Assembly. The Minister directed the District Magistrate to reconsider the matter. Based on the directions given by the Minister, the matter was reopened. The Dist
