- (1.) HEARD Sri P.N.Saxena, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.B.Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri M.C.Tripathi, learned counsel for the Kanpur Development Authority. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 23.2.2011 passed by respondent no.3 stopping the construction over the land of the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be the purchaser of Plot No.13, Block 16, Sutherland House, Civil Lines, Kanpur, in auction sale of the assets of the British India Corporation. Predecessor in title of the petitioner British India Corporation was under liquidation and the assets of the Corporation was transferred to the petitioner's Company. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the bid was approved by the Asset Sale Committee constituted by BIFR on 15.1.2004. The petitioner's case is that after purchase of the land a sanctioned plan was submitted to the Kanpur Development Authority which sought no objection from all the authorities including the District Magistrate. It is submitted that the District Magistrate passed an order dated 26th October, 2009 giving his no objection on several conditions as mentioned in the letter. Subsequent to the letter of the District Magistrate the Kanpur Development Authority vide its letter dated 25.11.2009 has granted sanction of the plan subject to the condition mentioned therein including the conditions as imposed by the District Magistrate.
(3.) THE petitioner's grievance is that the Additional District Magistrate without any notice and opportunity to the petitioner directly issued letter dated 23.2.2011 directing the Officer-in-Charge, Police Station Kotwali, Kanpur Nagar for taking action to stop the construction made by the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to appear before the Additional District Magistrate along with the documents of title. The letter was also sent to the Kanpur Development Authority to examine as to whether construction is being made in pursuance of the sanctioned plan and if the plan has been sanctioned what is the basis for sanction of the plan and the actual facts be placed before the District Magistrate. The writ petition was entertained. The respondents were allowed time to file counter affidavit. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3. In the counter affidavit which has been brought on record a stand has sought to be taken that the Cawnpore Improvement Trust transferred the Sutherland Houe to M/s. Begg Sutherland Company Limited the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner. It is further sought to contend that the land belongs to the State Government being nazul land and an application for mutation of the name of British India Corporation was rejected by the Collector in the year 2004 and again an application was filed on 12.9.2005 by the British India Corporation for recording the name of the British India Corporation before the Prabhari Adhikari (Nazul ) and it was only in the year 2005 that the name of British India Corporation could be recorded in the Nazul record.;