Point of Law : It is pertinent to note that the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 deals with land revenue and the jurisdiction of Revenue Officers in the State. The Act does not regulate building activity.

JUDGMENT :

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 10 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’); the notification dated 18.12.2015, issued under the proviso to clause (1) of Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India; the notification dated 22.8.2001, issued by the State Government, under Section 2(d) of the Act and the order dated 29.8.2022, passed by the Competent Authority, Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar (respondent no. 3 – for short ‘the Authority’).

BACKGROUND

2. The petitioner claims to be co-owner of a residential plot in Khasra No. 422, area 561.86 square meters, Dankaur, Gautam Budh Nagar on basis of a sale deed dated 12.3.2021, executed in her favour by one Satish Goyal. The impugned order passed by respondent no. 3 dated 29.8.2022 records that an inspection was made by the officials of the Authority on 1.4.2022 and whereupon it transpired that the petitioner had sub-divided the plot and had raised illegal constructions over it. The same was prejudicially affecting the proper planning of the industrial development area and falls within the mischief of Section 10 of the Act. It was held to be violative of Section 9 of the Act and Regulation 1 and 3 of the Yamuna Expressway Development Authority (Construction and Demolition) Regulations, 2010, as no prior approval was taken from the Authority before raising the constructions. There is also a recordal to the effect that the area in question is part of the ‘industrial development area’, so notified by notification dated 24.4.2001 and the notification issued on 18.12.2015, notifying eighty villages, including Village Dankaur as part of ‘industrial township’ under the proviso to clause (1) of Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the constructions raised were held to be illegal and have been directed to be removed within fifteen days, failing which, the Authority would remove it at the cost and expense of the petitioner.

CONTENTIONS

3. The basic ground of challenge is that the plot in respect of which the impugned order has been passed, is situated in Village Dankaur. The authority competent to grant approval to the constructions was Nagar Panchayat, Dankaur and the petitioner had applied before it on 2.11.2022 for grant of approval of the constructions. The said application is still pending. In these circumstances, the order passed by respondent no. 3 for demolition of the constructions on the ground that the petitioner had not taken permission from the Authority, is wholly illegal, as it amounts to usurpation of the powers of Nagar Panchayat, Dankaur. It is contended that the Act of 1976 and the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 under which Nagar Panchayat, Dankaur would be exercising its power, could not operate simultaneously. The notification issued under Article 243-Q results in divesting the Nagar Palika of its jurisdiction in the matter. It is also contended that Section 10 is violative of Articles 14, 21 and 31A of the Constitution of India, as it has the effect of permanently depriving a person of his/her right to use and enjoy the property or to raise constructions over it.

4. On the other hand, Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Suresh Singh, appearing for the respondent Authority, submitted that the vires of the notification dated 18.12.2015, issued under the proviso to clause (1) of Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India, has already been upheld by this Court in Writ – C No. 50154 of 2016 (Shri Niwaz Nagar and Another vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others), decided on 4.7.2017. It is urged that in the said judgment, this Court had considered the interplay between the constitutional scheme and the provisions of the Act and had held that the notification does not violate any provision of the Constitution. He has also placed reliance on another judgment of this Court in Writ – C No. 9899 of 2015 (Rakam S