V. K. Khanna, J. - (1.) ACCORDING to the petitioners they submitted an application under Sec. 7 of the U. P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for permission to develop a commercial -cum -residential colony in the name of 'BANWARI BATIKA' on the land situated near Kamlila ground at Delhi-Meerut Road, in Meerut comprising Khasra Nos. 1883, 1884, 1885, 1886, 1891 to 1896. On 2nd February, 1973 the aforesaid application was returned by the Prescribed Authority along with the lay out plan as unapproved with the objection that the site in the lay-out-plan was in the area of T-3 and C-3 land uses of which was confined to Bus-Stand and commercial purposes under the Master Plan for Meerut. The petitioners thereafter on 22nd February, 1973 made an application with the prayer that in the lay-out plan submitted by them markings and locations of the roads and the area T-3 and C-3 may be made and the map be sanctioned. On 24-12-1973 the Prescribed Authority informed the petitioners that the map which has been submitted cannot be approved unless the Transport Department makes alignments of the roads of the colony with the roads of the Transport Nagar. On 8th February, 1974 an application was again made to the Prescribed Authority stating that the sanction of the plan has been pending with him since a long time and that the same be returned to the petitioner as duly sanctioned. ACCORDING to the petitioners as no reply was received from the Prescribed Authority a notice under Sec. 7 (4) of the Act was sent on 20-12-1974 with the prayer that the order of sanction along with the sanctioned map be sent within 15 days so that the draft agreement of the estimate for development may also be submitted for approval.
(2.) IT appears that ultimately on 12th June, 1975 the Prescribed Authority approved the plan partially after laying down certain conditions which were mainly to the effect that in the lay-out plan on the areas marked as T-3 and C-3 roads, parks etc. shall be demarcated in accordance with the land use. Feeling aggrieved an appeal was filed under Sec. 15 of the Act to the Controlling Authority, who by his order dated 12-2-1976 held that the Prescribed Authority has not granted the sanction in accordance with the directions issued under the Act and that the plan could not be deemed to have been approved under Sec. 7 (4) of the Act. The Controlling Authority directed that action should be taken in accordance with the direction No. 10 and the petitioner should be directed to make necessary modifications and a report should be obtained from the Mukhya Nagar Evam Gram Niyojak and the petitioner should be directed to submit the agreement for development of the colony on the amended approved plan and the petitioners should be restrained from making any development work. A revision was thereafter filed to the State Government under Sec. 15-A of the Act which was disposed of on 29-7-1978 and the revision was dismissed. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the three orders of the Prescribed Authority, dated 12-6-'75, the Controlling Authority dated 12-2-1976 and of the State Government dated 29th July, 1978. The impugned orders have been challenged firstly on the ground that because of the provisions of Sec. 7 (4) of the Act the Prescribed Authority was guilty of omission in refusing to grant permission upon a notice given by the petitioners and in law no order could be passed by the Prescribed-Authority after the expiry of 30 days. Secondly, it has been urged that at the time when the plan was submitted by the petitioner there was no sanctioned Master Plan for the city of Meerut and thus the petitioner was entitled to get sanction in respect of the entire area and the Prescribed Authority could not grant permission only in respect of part of the area excluding area T-3 and C-3 as being earmarked for Bus-stand and commercial purposes. Thirdly it has been urged that the Controlling Authority and the State Government have erred in holding that there have been contraventions of the provisions of the Act, Regulations and directions issued thereunder. In the present writ petition a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government and a counter-affidavit on behalf of the Meerut Development Authority. After hearing of the case had commenced the petitioner filed two supplementary affidavits and a supplementary counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the Meerut Development Authority in reply of which a supplementary rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. These supplementary affidavits have been filed mainly for the purposes of showing as to whether there was a Master Plan in existence at the time when the application for approval of the plan was submitted on behalf of the petitioners. Sri A. P. Misra, counsel appearing for the Meerut Development Authority has not been able to show us that on the date of passing of the impugned orders either by the Prescribed Authority or the Controlling Authority or the State Government there was a sanctioned Master Plan in respect of Meerut city including the land in respect of which plan was submitted. The petitioners have, however, shown us that now a Master Plan has come into operation so far as the Meerut City is concerned.
(3.) AS far as the first argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in our opinion the contention is without any force. Section 7 of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time, was as follows :- "7. Application for permission :-(1) Every person desiring to obtain the permission referred to in Sec. 6 shall make an application in writing to the Prescribed Authority in such form and containing such information as may be prescribed in respect of the development, building, excavation or means of access to which the application relates. (2) On receipt of such application the Prescribed Authority, after making such enquiry as it considers necessary in relation to any directions which may have been issued under Sec. 5 or in relation to any other matter, and having regard to such directions shall, by order in writing either grant the permission, subject to such conditions, if any as may be specified in the order, or refuse to grant such permission. (3) Where permission is refused, the ground of such refusal shall be communicated to the applicant in such manner as may be prescribed, within 90 days of the receipt of such application. (4) Where no orders are communicated within the period mentioned in subsection (3) granting or refusing the permission, the applicant may by a written communication call the attention of the Prescribed Authority to the omission or neglect, and if such omission or neglect continues for a further period of 30 days, the Prescribed Authority shall be deemed to have permitted the proposed work : Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be construed to authorize any person to act in contravention of the directions issued under this Act." From the narration of the facts as given above, it is clear that the application under Sec. 7 for permission was moved on 20-12-1972 and on 2nd February, 1973 the same was returned by the Prescribed Authority. It is thus clear that within 90 days of the submission of the application the Prescribed Authority had refused permission thus there could be no question of applying the provisions of Sec. 7 (4) of the Act in respect of the application dated 20-12-1972. The petitioners have, however, tried to argue that the application was re-submitted on 22-2-73 and action should have been taken on that application within 90 days. A bare perusal of paragraph 4 of the writ petition would show that the same application dated 20-12-1972 had been re-submitted for making of locations of land which fell in area T-3 and C-3 (land uses of which was confined to Bus-stand and commercial purposes). In our opinion, re-submission of same application dated 20-12-1972 in respect of which the Prescribed Authority had refused permission, could not entitle the petitioners for a fresh decision from the Prescribed Authority unless the alignments of the Roads etc. was done by the Transport Department. The petitioners have thereafter referred to their application dated 8th February, 1974 and in the aforesaid application also reference has been made to the application dated 20-12-1972, The aforesaid application dated 8th February, 1974 could also not be treated as a fresh application. As far as the notice given by the petitioners on 8-2-1974 is concerned, the same also cannot give any benefit to the petitioners inasmuch as the aforesaid letter is also in relation to the earlier application dated 20-12-1972. From the entire correspondence, which has been filed on the record of the case, it appears that the Prescribed Authority had submitted the petitioner's plan to the Transport Department for alignment of roads as in the layout of the petitioner's plan some land had to be left for bus-stand and some land for commercial purposes. In our opinion the Prescribed Authority had refused permission on 2-2-1973 i.e. within 90 days of the submission of the application dated 20-12-1972. However, the Prescribed Authority had made it clear that the aforesaid application would be liable for consideration again when the alignments of the roads by the Transport Department had been earmarked in the map submitted by the petitioners. The Prescribed Authority by his order dated 12-6-1975 sanctioned the petitioners' plan after excluding portions T-3 and C-3 earmarked for bus-stand and commercial purposes was, in fact, earmarked in the map submitted by the petitioners. In such circumstances there was no question of application of provisions of Sec. 7 (4) of the Act and by no stretch of imagination a presumption could be raised under Sec. 7 (4) of the Act that the Prescribed Authority shall be deemed to have permitted the proposed work. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners has thus no force.;