Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2539 (ALL)

Rajesh Kumar Mishra v. State of U. P.

2016-07-21

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, V.K.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT By way of present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the notices dated 21.6.2016 as well as 4.5.2016 issued by respondent no.5 regarding property situated at Arazi No.442/3, House No.B-27/90, Bhadaini, Durga Kund Road, Varanasi. They have further prayed for mandamus directing the respondent nos. 3 to 5 to decide their objections dated 6.5.2016 and 14.5.2016 relating to the notices dated 4.5.2016 issued by respondent no.5 within a stipulated period and not to demolish any construction and maintain status quo with regard to the property in dispute. 2. At the very outset, Shri Vivek Verma, learned counsel representing Varanasi Development Authority (in short, VDA) has raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable as same has been filed against the notices and as such, the writ petition is premature and liable to be dismissed. 3. Record in question reflects that the property in question was constructed for commercial purposes by the builder and owner Smt. Savitri Devi and the construction was raised after the requisite map was sanctioned by the VDA on 27.9.1994. The same was completed way back in the year 2001. 4. Petitioners claim that they had purchased shops when the construction was completed by the builder in ground floor. It has also been stated that at present there are more than 100 shops in the property in question and a general list of the names of the purchasers including the date of registry and nature of business has also been appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 5. Shri Udai Chandani, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers of the property in question and the property was purchased way back in the years 2001 and 2003 respectively and the construction was raised after obtaining the necessary formalities and sanction of map from the VDA on 27.9.1994. No notice of any kind was served upon the petitioners personally or any other shop owner by the VDA since the year 2000 till date and all the shop owners including the petitioners are carrying on their business in the premises in question. No notice of any kind was served upon the petitioners personally or any other shop owner by the VDA since the year 2000 till date and all the shop owners including the petitioners are carrying on their business in the premises in question. On 4.5.2016 for the first time a notice was sent by the VDA to Smt. Savitri Devi, who was the original owner of the property in question stating that there is no basement parking in the said commercial disposed of building and there is serious deviation against the sanctioned map, and as such, the entire proceeding has been initiated against the dead person, which cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same is nullity. 6. Countering the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Vivek Varma, appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submits that the VDA has every right to proceed in the matter as per provisions contained in U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. Once the VDA has got information that the property in question has been raised contrary to the sanctioned plan and certain illegal construction has been carried out, it has every right to issue notices and to direct the incumbent, who has raised illegal construction or is carrying out any illegal activity contrary to the sanctioned plan and as such, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned notices. 7. We have proceeded to peruse the impugned notices and find that in the present matter, admittedly the VDA had proceeded to sanction the building plan way back on 27.9.1994 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and the petitioners claim to be bonafide purchasers of the subject property. Once the VDA has got an information that open/parking space has been occupied, then we are of the considered opinion that the VDA has ample powers to proceed into the matter as per provisions contained in the Act of 1973 and there is no infirmity or illegality in the said notices. 8. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that a directive may be issued to the VDA to decide the objections of the petitioners. 9. It is open to the authority concerned to decide the objections of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9. It is open to the authority concerned to decide the objections of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Writ petition is disposed of.