IMPORTANT POINT
The amendment to the bye-laws significantly altered the fee structure for land use conversion, impacting the petitioner's application process.

JUDGMENT :

RITU BAHRI, C.J.

1. The petitioner is seeking a direction for quashing the letter issued by the City Magistrate, Haldwani (Annexure7), whereby his application for sanction of the plan for setting up the petrol pump has not been decided till date.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has given the application along with the documents of title, layout plan annexed for giving No Objection Certificate, and his application has not been decided till date. On 28.01.2020, copy of the application (Annexure-6) has been sent from the office of the District Magistrate, Nainital to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Haldwani, District Supply Officer, Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital, Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Haldwani, Joint Secretary, District Level Development Authority, Haldwani, Regional Officer Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board, Haldwani, Geologist Task Force, Haldwani, Chief Fire Officer, Haldwani, Joint Planner Town and Country Planning Department, Haldwani, for giving No Objection Certificate. However, vide Annexure-7, which is an internal communication between respondent no. 2-District Level Development Authority, and the Additional District Magistrate, Nainital, the application of the petitioner is not being approved and the NOC has not been granted to him. It is further stated in the writ petition that respondent no. 2 has relied upon Serial No. (iii) of Point 7.14 of the Uttarakhand Building Construction and Development Bye Laws/ Regulations, 2011, as amended in 2015, and come to the conclusion that the application for the proposed filling stations and filling cum service stations at the National and Regional and Internal Main Roads, outside the area of Master Plan on those agricultural/ rural area and open/ undeveloped/ barren areas, whose land use is not ascertained in Master Plan will be considered only after receiving the amount of 75% of the valuation of the land towards ucchikaran shulk.

3. Along with the petitioner, the petitioner has also placed on record true copy of Serial No. (iii) of Point 7.14 of the Uttarakhand Building Construction and Development Bye Laws/ Regulations, 2011, as amended in 2015 as Annexure-8.

4. In the above background, the petitioner is challenging the Uttarakhand Building Construction and Development Bye Laws/Regulations, 2011, as amended in 2015, particularly, Clause 3.3(vi) and Clause 7.14 of the said regulations, being violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India.

5. The present writ petition was filed in the year 2020. On notice of this writ petition counter-affidavits have been filed by respondent nos.1 and 4 on 17.08.2021 and 30.04.2021 respectively. The stand taken by the respondents in the counter-affidavits is that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the respondents have the power to make the bye-laws and to amend it.

6. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent no. 1, it is stated in Paragraph No. 10 that as per Clause 1.1.2 of the Building Construction and Development Bye Laws/ Regulations-2011 (amended in 2015) are applicable to all regulated areas/ development areas and special development areas and will be applicable in all the areas located outside the above said areas. Clause 1.2.1 of the Regulations, 2011 further provides that the Bye-laws/ Regulations will be applicable on the development of any plot of land, redevelopment, sub-division or construction of building, reconstruction or alteration of any building. The Regulations have been placed on record as Annexure CA-2. There is a clear provision of land use conversion fees for the areas falling within the Master Plan area in case of contrary land use in Chapter 7 of the Building Construction and Development Byelaws/ Regulations, 2011 (amended in 2015), especially in Clause 7.14(i)(ii), and as per Clause 7.14(iii), there is a provision of upgradation charges for the areas falling outside the Master Plan area.

7. In the facts of the present case, the