- (1.) By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the prayer is that by issuing a writ of Certiorari the order dated 20-4-90 (Annexure-7 to the petition), passed by the Secretary, Shakti Nagar Special Development Area, Renukoot, under Section 14 of the U.P. Special Areas Development Authorities Act, 1986 (for short the Act), reviewing an order for granting permission or approving a map for construction of a building over the land in dispute consistent with development plan, may be quashed. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner has obtained a map for raising construction over the land in dispute in accordance with the procedure under Section 13 of the Act. An objection was raised by respondent Nos. 3 & 4 that the petitioner has got no right or title in respect of the land in dispute . After an enquiry it has been found that over plot No. 2425 area 19 biswa, over 4 biswa of land one Ramesh Chandra Jauhari, respondent No. 4 has been recorded and over 15 biswa of land one Smt. Puja Mathur, respondent No. 3 is recorded as Bhumidhar. The petitioner has raised unauthorised construction over the land in dispute and the prayer by respondent Nos. 3 & 4 was that the construction may be demolished and the map sanctioned under Section 13 or the plan approved (758/89, Sonebhadra), may be cancelled. It was found that the petitioner was not recorded over any area of the land, rather in some enquiry report submitted to the Tahsildar, the petitioner was shown to be in possession only. As the petitioner was having no right or title consequently the map sanctioned or plan approved in view of the procedure contemplated under Section 14 has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 20-4-90 (Annexure-7 to the petition).
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that as the permission for development of the land and raising construction was obtained by the petitioner in pursuance of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act and also in view of the procedure contemplated under Section 13 and the petitioner was trying to raise the construction, in that event also the permission granted or the map approved cannot be cancelled by respondent No. 2 as there appears to be no power of review under the Act. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, urged that as the power to grant permission was provided specifically under Section 14 and under Section 14(5) there was a procedure for appeal to the State Government. Further under Section 38 which provides control by the State Government, particularly under Section 38(3) the State Government has got power of entertaining revision and that power is very comprehensive unlike Section 115 of the C.P.C. if the State Government is satisfied itself about the legality or propriety of any order passed or direction issued. In this view of the matter apart from that, there was inherent power to review and in any view of the matter the impugned order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.
(3.) As the facts of the writ petition are almost admitted there is no necessity to ask for counter affidavit. The learned counsel for the parties suggested that the petition may be disposed of on merits.;