IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.
M/s Tanya Marketing Private Limited – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And Others – Respondents
WRIT C No. - 13146 of 2022
Decided On : 06-03-2024
U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 - Challenge to Orders - Section 41(3) - Meat Processing Plant - No Objection Certificate - Construction without Sanction - Compounding Application - Zonal Regulations - Width of Road - Bye-laws - Master Plan - Violation of Plan - Demolition - Composition of Offences
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, engaged in meat processing, constructed a plant without obtaining the required sanction from the Development Authority. The Authority issued notices and rejected compounding applications due to non-compliance with objections. The petitioner challenged the rejection through various appeals and revisions. The Authority rejected the application for compounding and sealed the premises. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking relief.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions of the No Objection Certificate and the requirements of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The Court held that the petitioner's construction violated the master plan and zonal development plan, and the width of the road did not meet the bye-law requirements. The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the rejection of the compounding application and the sealing of the premises.
Issues: Non-compliance with No Objection Certificate conditions, violation of master plan and zonal development plan, width of road, compounding of offences, and sealing of premises.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of obtaining prior permission and complying with the master plan and zonal development plan. It held that the petitioner's failure to adhere to the statutory requirements and bye-laws warranted the rejection of the compounding application and the sealing of the premises.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the rejection of the compounding application and the sealing of the premises.
JUDGMENT :
1. Through this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 28.03.2022 passed by respondent no. 1 under Section 41(3) of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as “the Act of 1973”) and order dated 06.03.2021 passed by Meerut Development Authority (hereinafter referred as “the Authority”) exercising power under Section 27(1) of the Act of 1973. The prayer has also been made for directing the respondent-Development Authority to remove the seal from the petitioner’s firm.
2. Facts leading to the present case, are that petitioner is engaged in the business of meat processing, after obtaining license from Agriculture and Processed Food Product Export Development Authority, Delhi (APEDA). The factory of the petitioner is situated at Khasra No. 81, 82, 70, 55A, 55B, 56A, 56B, 57, 59 and 60, Alipur, Jijwana, Hapur Road, Meerut. It is also registered under the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).
3. It had sought a No Objection Certificate from District Magistrate, Meerut in the year 2013 for establishing an integrated meat processing plant and slaughtering house on the aforesaid khasra number. On 06.06.2013, conditional No Objection Certificate was granted, wherein it was provided under Clause 12 to seek permission from Development Authority in regard to construction of building. The condition further provided that permission from Pollution Control Board, Lucknow was also required before establishing the integrated meat plant.
4. The petitioner without approval of sanction of map by the Authority had constructed the plant, pursuant to which a notice dated 27.03.2017 under Section 27(1) was issued. Immediately, on 30.03.2017, the petitioner moved an application for compounding of construction of factory raised on Khasra Nos. 81 and 83. Certain objections were raised by the Authority on 12.09.2017. Since the objections were not removed, the Authority rejected the compounding application on 19.01.2018. Thereafter, petitioner again on 12.01.2019 moved another application for reconsideration of sanction of map and compounding the construction raised by him. The application was rejected on 11.02.2019 for not removing the objections. The Enforcement Officer of the Authority passed an order on 25.02.2019 to seal the premises, and on 27.04.2019, the premises was sealed.
5. Petitioner challenged both order dated 11.02.2019 and 25.02.2019 through an appeal before Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. On 01.07.2019, the Commissioner directed the Authority to decide the matter afresh after making verification, but refused to interfere in the sealing order of the premises. The petitioner filed a revision under Section 41(3) before State Authority, which was decided by order dated 31.10.2019 requiring the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut to decide the appeal afresh.
6. The appeal was reheard, and on 20.01.2020 the order dated 11.02.2019 was set aside and the Authority was directed to decide the matter regarding sealing of petitioner’s premises. Pursuant to said order, Authority issued notice to petitioner on 15.02.2020 and on 03.07.2020 to remove the objections raised by Authority on compounding application. Simultaneously, a letter was sent on 11.09.2020 to Chief Town and Country Planner seeking instructions with regard to width of the road as provided under Para 2.3 of Building Construction and Development Bye-law, 2008. On 14.10.2020, Chief Town and Country Planner provided the guidelines. According to which, non residential and commercial area where the land is put to industrial use, the width of the road must be at least 12 meter wide whose length is 200 meter. In case length of road is between 201 and 400 meter, the width should be 18 meter, and in case of length of road from 401 meter to 1000 meter, the width should be 24 meter. While those roads whose length is more than 1000 meter, the width should be 30 meter.
7. In the meantime, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 144
Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala
Dhananjaya Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka (2001) 4 SCC 9
Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa
K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Town Municipal Council, Udipi
M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu
Nazir Ahmad Vs. King-Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253
S.N. Chandrashekar v. State of Karnataka
Shanti Sports Club and Anr. Vs. Union of India and others
State of Jharkhand & others Vs. Ambay Cements & another (2005) 1 SCC 368
The judgment establishes the principle that compliance with statutory requirements, including obtaining prior permission and adhering to master plans and bye-laws, is mandatory. Non-compliance can le....
Prior development permissions granted under repealed rules remain valid despite subsequent regulatory changes, and cannot be revoked retroactively by new laws.
The Interim Development Order prevails over the older Master Plan and governs the issuance of building permits under the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act.
Accrued rights from previous land use approvals must be respected despite new regulations; Town Planner's jurisdiction to deny building plan approval was not established.
Regulatory powers of NOIDA cannot arbitrarily deny building permits; valid ownership rights must be respected and decisions must be backed by statutory reasons.
Regulatory authorities cannot arbitrarily deny building permits without valid statutory reasons, especially when ownership rights are undisputed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.