State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Sangam Upn. Avas Evam Nirman Sah Samiti
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 7397 of 1994
Petitioner: State of U.P. & Ors.
Respondent: Sangam Upn. Avas Evam Nirman Sah Samiti
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 7397 of 1994
Judges: D.P. MOHAPATRA & K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 26, 2001
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Articles 226, 136 – High Court directing the development authority to intimate the amount payable for renewal of lease, then deposit of said amount and renewal of lease as well as release of approved plan – Time-frame given – Proposed construction objected to be in violation of master plan – Map sanctioned by development authority – No objection by state government – Master plan modified permitting construction on disputed plot. Held that no interference is called for in the directions given by High Court. Appeal dismissed. (Paras 6, 7)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Allahabad Development Authority (“the ADA” for short) in issuing the approved plan (map) for the residential building proposed to be constructed by it, the Sangam Upnivashan Avas Evam Vikas Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited, respondent herein, filed civil miscellaneous writ petition no. 19030 of 1992 in the High Court of Allahabad seeking appropriate writ direction to the respondents to issue the approved plan (map). The State of Uttar Pradesh represented by the secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, the collector and the Allahabad Development Authority were arrayed as respondents in the writ petition.
2. The respondents took the stand that though the ADA had approved the plan submitted by the writ petitioner, the same could not be issued for want of no objection certificate from the collector, Allahabad. The stand taken by the collector, Allahabad was that the no objection certificate could not be issued to the writ petitioner as it had committed default in payment of the instalments of amount for renewal of the lease and had not paid the entire amount which had fallen due by efflux of time. A further objection was raised on behalf of the state government that the proposed building for residential purpose was not permissible, since the area had been reserved for government office and for widening of roads in the master plan.
3. The High Court in its judgment rendered on 29th September, 1992, ordered, inter alia, that on the writ petitioner approaching the respondents with a certified copy of the judgment, the latter will intimate the amount payable by the writ petitioner for renewal of the lease within two weeks, and within three weeks of receipt of such intimation, the writ petitioner shall deposit the said amount; the respondents after accepting the amount will execute the lease in accordance with law and thereafter release the plan (the map) submitted by the writ petitioner within three days. The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal filed by special leave by the State of Uttar Pradesh.
4. The main thrust of the submissions of learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants is that the proposed construction is not permissible according to the master plan prepared by the ADA and approved by the state government. The learned counsel also raised the question of default of payment of amount due for renewal of the lease.
5. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent contended that during the pendency of the case in this Court, the state government in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 10.11.1994, in which the state government as well as the Allahabad Development Authority were permitted to make any change in the master plan, if necessary, process the application on that basis, modified the master plan permitting construction of any residential building in the area. Therefore, submitted Sri Dwivedi, there is no basis for the objection raised by the state government for approving the plan (map). Regarding the payment of the amount for renewal of the lease, Mr. Dwivedi fairly submitted that within the time specified in the judgment of the High Court, the respondent, on receiving the intimation from the ADA, will deposit the entire amount. He pointed out that further steps in the matter in pursuance of the judgment of the High Court could not be taken in view of the stay order passed by this Court.
6. We have perused the records and considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties. Though the High Court in the judgment under challenge has not examined the question relating to non-compliance with the approved master plan on the ground that the ADA which is the primary authority for implementation of master plan had sanctioned the plan (map) submitted by the writ petitioner and the state government had not raised any objection on the ground during all these years (more than four years).
7. From the documents, particularly the correspondence between the ADA and the state government and the communication made by the chief architect of the ADA to the respondent, it is clear to us that the master plan has been modified permitting construction of residential building on the plot in dispute. So far as the payment of the amount for renewal of the lease is concerned, as noted earlier, the High Court has directed for payment within the time specified in the judgment and the respondent has expressed its readiness and willingness before us for complying with the direction in the judgment. In that view of the matter, we are not satisfied that the judgment under challenge warrants interference.
8. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs.
1. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Allahabad Development Authority (“the ADA” for short) in issuing the approved plan (map) for the residential building proposed to be constructed by it, the Sangam Upnivashan Avas Evam Vikas Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited, respondent herein, filed civil miscellaneous writ petition no. 19030 of 1992 in the High Court of Allahabad seeking appropriate writ direction to the respondents to issue the approved plan (map). The State of Uttar Pradesh represented by the secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, the collector and the Allahabad Development Authority were arrayed as respondents in the writ petition.
2. The respondents took the stand that though the ADA had approved the plan submitted by the writ petitioner, the same could not be issued for want of no objection certificate from the collector, Allahabad. The stand taken by the collector, Allahabad was that the no objection certificate could not be issued to the writ petitioner as it had committed default in payment of the instalments of amount for renewal of the lease and had not paid the entire amount which had fallen due by efflux of time. A further objection was raised on behalf of the state government that the proposed building for residential purpose was not permissible, since the area had been reserved for government office and for widening of roads in the master plan.
3. The High Court in its judgment rendered on 29th September, 1992, ordered, inter alia, that on the writ petitioner approaching the respondents with a certified copy of the judgment, the latter will intimate the amount payable by the writ petitioner for renewal of the lease within two weeks, and within three weeks of receipt of such intimation, the writ petitioner shall deposit the said amount; the respondents after accepting the amount will execute the lease in accordance with law and thereafter release the plan (the map) submitted by the writ petitioner within three days. The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal filed by special leave by the State of Uttar Pradesh.
4. The main thrust of the submissions of learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants is that the proposed construction is not permissible according to the master plan prepared by the ADA and approved by the state government. The learned counsel also raised the question of default of payment of amount due for renewal of the lease.
5. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent contended that during the pendency of the case in this Court, the state government in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 10.11.1994, in which the state government as well as the Allahabad Development Authority were permitted to make any change in the master plan, if necessary, process the application on that basis, modified the master plan permitting construction of any residential building in the area. Therefore, submitted Sri Dwivedi, there is no basis for the objection raised by the state government for approving the plan (map). Regarding the payment of the amount for renewal of the lease, Mr. Dwivedi fairly submitted that within the time specified in the judgment of the High Court, the respondent, on receiving the intimation from the ADA, will deposit the entire amount. He pointed out that further steps in the matter in pursuance of the judgment of the High Court could not be taken in view of the stay order passed by this Court.
6. We have perused the records and considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties. Though the High Court in the judgment under challenge has not examined the question relating to non-compliance with the approved master plan on the ground that the ADA which is the primary authority for implementation of master plan had sanctioned the plan (map) submitted by the writ petitioner and the state government had not raised any objection on the ground during all these years (more than four years).
7. From the documents, particularly the correspondence between the ADA and the state government and the communication made by the chief architect of the ADA to the respondent, it is clear to us that the master plan has been modified permitting construction of residential building on the plot in dispute. So far as the payment of the amount for renewal of the lease is concerned, as noted earlier, the High Court has directed for payment within the time specified in the judgment and the respondent has expressed its readiness and willingness before us for complying with the direction in the judgment. In that view of the matter, we are not satisfied that the judgment under challenge warrants interference.
8. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs.
