IMPORTANT POINT
The authority's permission to construct 14 units should have led to the issuance of a completion certificate, and the authority's refusal was contrary to the statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition arises out of an order passed by the Vice Chairman, Prayagraj Development Authority, dated 15.2.2024, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, whereby petitioner’s application submitted for issuing completion certificate has not been accepted. The application itself was filed pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court in petitioner’s previous writ petition no. 42231 of 2023. The petitioner submits that the order impugned is wholly arbitrary and is in teeth of the previous adjudication made by this Court in petitioner’s earlier writ.

2. The impugned order of the Vice Chairman runs into eight pages. Paragraph No. 1 to 21 of the order notices facts relating to the controversy raised. The findings and conclusion in the order under challenge is contained in para 22, which is reproduced hereinafter:-

3. Although the Vice-Chairman has recorded in his order that there is no hindrance in issuance of completion certificate in respect of 14 units yet the completion certificate has not been issued to the petitioner.

4. In order to appreciate the controversy raised some of the background facts are required to be noticed. A building plan was initially approved by the Prayagraj Development Authority on 11th of March, 2019 in favour of the petitioner for construction of 16 residential units, on a parcel of land being part of freehold plot no. 35 and 35A, Lukerganj, Prayagraj. The construction project was got registered with U.P. Real Estate Regulation Authority on 15.10.2019. This registration was initially valid for a period of three years and is stated to have been extended upto 2.10.2023. It transpires that the plot on which these constructions were permitted to be raised belonged partly to the petitioner and rest to Rajesh Kumar Athwani, Deepak Kumar and Umesh Athwani. These private individuals had transferred part of their share earlier in favour of the present petitioner.

5. It transpires that an exchange deed was executed between petitioner’s vendor and Respondent No. 5 in the present petition on 06.05.2017 as a result of which 133.4 sq.meter land falling in the project area was exchanged with 96.6 sq.meter land belonging to petitioner’s vendor. This exchange deed contained a stipulation in Clause-6, which is reproduced hereinafter:-

"6. That the Second Party shall however have right to ingress and egress from the North side of their Property, to the property and man entrance of the property of the First Party as aforesaid from the Main Road, marked Red in the annexed Site Plan, whereby Main Entrance of the Property of the First Party from Main Road shall be common to entry to the Property of the Second Party."

6. The fifth respondent apparently objected to the ongoing constructions commenced by the petitioner in terms of the sanctioned map on the ground that their right to passage, existing between the 16 row houses would be obstructed and thereby the sixth clause of the exchange deed would stand violated. This was so as no passage was provided in terms of Clause-6 in the building plan sanctioned on 11.3.2019. Consequently, a suit being Original Suit No. 187 of 2021 came to be instituted by respondent no. 5 and others before the Civil Court at Prayagraj. In the said suit the present petitioner is arrayed as the only defendant. Prayer in the nature of mandatory injunction has been claimed in the suit, which is reproduced hereinafter:-

"By means of mandatory injunction, the defendant be directed to erect 30 ft. wide common passage from North of the plaintiffs Land shown by letters. A.H.I.C. linking the same to 30 ft. wide common road erected by the defendant which goes from East to West and which has been shown in the map sanctioned by the P.D.A. on 11/03/2019, within the time provided by the court, failing which the decree complied with through the Court."

7. Other ancillary reliefs were also sought in the matter. It is admitted that the suit is pending and there is no interim injunction granted to t