Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1984 DIGILAW 373 (ALL)

Anoop Kumar v. Meerut Development

1984-05-01

B.N.SAPRU

body1984
JUDGMENT B. N. Sapru, J. 1. THE petitioner purchased 321 square yards of land on 11-6-1980 for a sale consideration of Rs. 15,050/- and thereafter the petitioner submitted an application to the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut (hereinafter called 'the Authority'), seeking permission to construct a boundary wall for the protection of the purchased land. This application was rejected by the authority and an intimation was given of the same by the Secretary of the Authority to the petitioner by letter dated 30-1-1981. In the letter it was stated that the application had been rejected as the land was proposed to be acquired for Meerut-Hapur and Meerut-Delhi Road construction scheme by the Authority. 2. THE petitioner filed an appeal under Section 15 (5) of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the Chairman of the Authority. THE Chairman by his order dated 4-6-1981 allowed the appeal and granted the permission with two conditions (1) that the Authority would grant the permission with a condition that in the event of the land being acquired (obviously under the Land Acquisition Act) the petitioner would ask for no compensation for the boundary wall and (2) that the petitioner would remove the boundary wall at his own costs and with a further rider that he would make no other constructions on the land. The petitioner is aggrieved by the conditions imposed by the appellate order and has filed the instant writ petition. 3. IT is made clear that the petitioner has made no grievance that he would make no constructions apart from the boundary wall op the land in question. 4. THE Land Acquisition Act provides for the mode in which the compensation is to be calculated and paid to a person whose property is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. It is true that under section 15 (5) of the Act, the Chairman can either dismiss the appeal or direct the Vice-Chairman to grant the permission applied for with such modifications or with such condition, if any, as may be specified. 5. THE question for consideration in this writ petition is whether the conditions imposed by the Chairman in his order in appeal, are within the scope of the powers conferred upon him. 6. 5. THE question for consideration in this writ petition is whether the conditions imposed by the Chairman in his order in appeal, are within the scope of the powers conferred upon him. 6. THE power to impose conditions has been conferred upon the Chairman for carrying into effect the purposes of the Act and is not an absolutely unrestricted power. Chapter VI of the Act deals with the acquisition and disposal of land. By section 17 (1), it is provided that if, in the opinion of the State Government, any land is required for the purpose of development, or for any other purpose, under this Act, the State Government may acquire such land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Act provides, inter alia, for payment of compensation. It lays down that when land is acquired, how the compensation is to be calculated. It is obvious that the Chairman by his order dated 4-6-1981 made under section 15 (5) of the Act, cannot curtail the right of a person to obtain compensation which is provided under the Land Acquisition Act. The direction contained in the appellate order directing the petitioner that the petitioner will not be entitled to claim compensation for the boundary wall, is not a direction which can be said to be a direction in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In fact, it is a direction which is not in conformity with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 7. THE respondents have not challenged the correctness of the order of the Chairman and cannot question the validity of the order of the Chairman granting the permission. 8. IT has been urged by Sri H. P. Gupta, appearing on behalf of the respondents, that the conditions have been imposed as the condition precedent for the grant of a permission. IT is urged that the permission would not have been granted if the conditions were not imposed. That may be so, but the fact remains that the permission to construct a boundary wall had been granted by the Chairman who had given a direction to the Vice Chairman to grant the permission. The question that remains for consideration is whether the entire order of the Chairman should be set aside or only that portion of the order which imposed certain conditions upon the petitioner. The question that remains for consideration is whether the entire order of the Chairman should be set aside or only that portion of the order which imposed certain conditions upon the petitioner. I find that in the order of the Chairman requiring the petitioner to give an undertaking that in the event of the land being acquired, he would not claim compensation for the boundary wall and would remove the same at his own expense, are invalid. It would be a great hardship on the petitioner if the entire order is quashed. The Chairman had granted the permission. That permission should continue in force. Illegal conditions imposed can be severed while maintaining the order of the Chairman. 9. SRI H. P. Gupta has urged that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of approaching the State Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 41, sub-section (3), of the Act. The provisions of subsection (3) are that the State Government may, at any time, either on its own motion or on an application made to it in this behalf, call for the records of any case disposed of or order passed by the Authority or the Chairman for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed or direction issued and any such order or issue such direction in relation thereto as it may think fit. The petitioner could have approached the State Government by way of an application under section 41 (3) of the Act. The petitioner, however, filed this writ petition. The petition was admitted on 2-9-81. This petition is being disposed of now in the month of April, 1984. If the petitioner is relegated to his remedy under section 41 (3) of the Act, the matter would be further delayed. Further, no investigation of fact required in this case. Only the validity of the order of the Chairman has to be adjudicated upon. It would not, therefore, be in the interest of justice to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy. 10. IT is also necessary to clarify the legal position in regard to power of the Chairman to impose conditions while disposing of an appeal under section 15 (5) of the Act. Public interest required that the law should be settled by this court at the earliest. 10. IT is also necessary to clarify the legal position in regard to power of the Chairman to impose conditions while disposing of an appeal under section 15 (5) of the Act. Public interest required that the law should be settled by this court at the earliest. I, therefore, reject the submission of Sri H. P. Gupta that the petitioner's writ petition be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under section 41 (3) of the Act. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed, the order allowing the appeal would stay but the conditions imposed therein that the petitioner will not claim any compensation for the boundary wall in the event of the land being acquired is quashed. The further direction in the order that in the event of the land being acquired, the petitioner will remove the boundary wall at his own costs, is also quashed. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs. Petition allowed.