A person suffering from a legal injury can challenge the action or order that may cause harm or loss, and the petitioners had a legal right to question the veracity and legality of the sanctioned map and construction.

Tarun Agarwala, J. –

This writ petition was filed in the yer 2012 praying for certain reliefs. Affidavits have been exchanged.

2. By an order of the Chief Justice dated 11.08.2016 this Bench has been nominated to decide the matter.

3. When the hearing of the writ petition started, a preliminary objection was raised by Sri Shashi Nandan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.5 with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. Accordingly, by an order dated 30.08.2016, we directed the parties to place their arguments on the maintainability of the writ petition. The Court has heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length.

4. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition in brief, is that respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 were the owners of plot Nos. 15/198 and 15/199. Plot no. 15/199 was carved out into 09 plots. A 25 feet wide road was also carved out in between plot Nos. 1 to 9 and plot Nos. 6 to 9. These plots were sold to various parties by respondent Nos. 6 to 8 in the year 1991. The purchasers have constructed their houses on these plots since long. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 are owners of these plots and have constructed their house after obtaining sanctioned maps from the Kanpur Development Authority. During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have filed an application for withdrawal of the writ petition which has been allowed and now the writ petition is being pursued by the petitioner Nos. 3 to 7.

5. It transpires that respondent Nos. 7 and 8 had executed a licence dated 14.12.2005 in favour of respondent no. 6 for ingress and egress to plot no. 15/198 in favour of respondent no. 6. Thereafter respondent no. 6 demolished the wall and started using the passage for ingress and egress to plot no. 15 of 198. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 filed suit no. 89 of 2006 in which initially an injunction was granted and on 14.04.2010 the suit was decreed on the basis of a compromise wherein the common passage of 25 feet was allowed to be used as ingress and egress for plot no. 15 of 198. Respondent no. 6 executed a sale deed in favour of respondent no. 5 on 24.12.2011 with regard to plot no. 15/198. Respondent no. 6 had also applied for construction of a four storied structure in plot no. 15 of 198, which was sanctioned by the Kanpur Development Authority on 26.04.2011. On the basis of the sanctioned map, respondent no. 5 started construction on the plot in question and constructed a sewer line in the common passage. The petitioners filed suit no. 1015 of 2012 in which initially an injunction was granted, which was vacated on 19.01.2013, against which a writ petition has been filed which is pending consideration before this Court.

6. The construction that was being raised by the respondent no. 5 was not in accordance with the sanctioned map and consequently one of the residents of the 09 plots in plot no. 15/198 filed a complaint before the Kanpur Development Authority. Another complaint dated 14.08.2012 was filed by the petitioner no. 3 contending that the construction was sanctioned on the stipulation that the common passage, which was 07 metres in width would be increased to 09 metres, which could not be done unless some land was carved out from the petitioners plot as well as from the plots of other residents. In the complaint it was also alleged that the parking area has been converted into a flat. Further setback has been reduced and instead of constructing 06 units the respondent no. 5 has constructed 22 units.

7. Based on this complaint, the Kanpur Development Authority issued notice to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and thereafter passed an order of demolition dated 23.05.2012. On 16.08.2012 a sealing order was passed. Since nothing has been done to remove the illegal construction, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 4509 of 2012, which was disposed of directing the petitioners to make a representation, which would be decided by the Kanpur Development Authority. Such represe