Concealment of non-material facts does not justify cancellation of building plan sanction; the petitioner’s title to the land was upheld.

JUDGMENT :

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.

Heard Shri Kunal Shah and Shri Amit Saxena (Sr. Advocate), learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anoop Trivedi for the contesting respondents as also learned Standing Counsel.

2. The writ petition seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 8.2.2024 passed by the third respondent and communicated by the fourth respondent, copy whereof is filed Annexure 1 to the writ petition.

3. By this order, a sanction accorded to a map for raising constructions over part of plot Nos. 361, 362, 363 and 365 No. PDA/BP/2021-22/0888 has been withdrawn in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (9) of Section 15 of the U.P. Urban and Planning Development Act, 1973.

4. Also under challenge is a consequential order dated 13.2.2024, passed by the fifth respondent, directing the petitioner to remove constructions existing over the land for which building plan had been sanctioned.

5. The facts relevant for the purposes of the writ petition are that the dispute pertains to 1123.75 sq. meters of land consisting of portions of plot Nos. 361, 362, 363 and 365 situated in Kasari Masari, Tehsil Sadar, District Prayagraj. The said plots alongwith other were the bhumidhari plots of one Mohd. Suleman and Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad.

6. It appears that in proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, the plots were declared surplus except an area of 1500 sq. meters, by the order dated 3.9.1982 and a consequential notification under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued. The declaration under Section 10(3) of the Act declared land of Khasra Nos. 361, 362, 363 and 365 to be surplus apart from other lands and a notice was issued to Mohd. Suleman asking for him to surrender possession over the land declared surplus.

7. On 15.6.1989, the son of Mohd. Suleman filed an application for recall of the order dated 30.9.1982 making absolute the drafts statement under Section 8(3) of the Act on the ground that Mohd. Suleman died on 3.2.1982 and the order was therefore, ex-parte.

8. The recall application was rejected but the consequential appeal was allowed on 21.1.1994, the order dated 30.9.1982 was set-aside and the matter was remanded back for a fresh decision after granting liberty to the son of Mohd. Suleman to file his objections to the drafts statement. This order of remand was affirmed by the High Court.

9. During the pendency of these proceedings, on 13.7.1990, a notification was issued under Section 4/17 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 391 Bigha 18 Biswa and 11 Biswansi situated in Kasari Masari, Tehsil Sadar, District Prayagraj and this notification included portions of plots 361, 362, 363 and 365. The respondents claim to be in possession over this land. However, it appears that out of a total area of 5130 sq. meters of plot Nos. 361, 362, 363 and 365 only 2622 sq. meters of land was subject-matter of acquisition and 2508 sq. meters were never acquired.

10. It is the petitioner's categorical case is that out of the land which had not been acquired, she purchased land aggregating 1123.75 sq. meter by means of 3 separate sale-deeds dated 17.3.2011, 24.5.2011 and 6.6.2011. On the basis of the sale-deeds, the petitioner was also mutated over the land. The petitioner is alleged to have raised a boundary wall to demarcate the area purchased and two rooms and a bathroom was also constructed, thereon.

11. On 2.12.2017, portions of the boundary wall and construction raised by the petitioner was demolished by the second respondent.

12. The petitioner thereafter filed Original Suit No. 506 of 2017 for declaration and permanent injunction against the Development Authority, wherein a written statement was filed alleging that the constructions were illegal, having been raised without a sanctioned plan. The property over which the constructions had been raised was acquired by the State Government and handed over to the Prayagraj Development Authority. The property had also been declared surplus and the possession over the surplu