S.K. Jain, J. - (1.) BEING a satellite town of the national capital New Delhi, Ghaziabad developed potentially. It was declared as a regulated area as back in the year 1958. Consequently a draft master plan for this regulated area was prepared in the year 1969 under the provision of Section 10A of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act"). As required under Section 10A (3) of the Act the said draft master plan was published thereby inviting public objections. The above said 1970 Act was repealed and was replaced by U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the 1973 Act). Proposing specific amendment in the Ghaziabad master plan thereby changing the alignment of 150' wide road Joining G. T. Road to Ghaziabad - -Hapur road, notification dated 21.11.1977 was published under Section 13(3) of 1973 Act. Objections were filed on behalf of the Petitioner and others. After affording opportunity of hearing to the objectors, notification dated 18.3.80 under Section 13(4). 1973 was published in the gazette on May 17, 1980 effecting the proposed amendment.
(2.) ON September 17, 1984, another notification under Section 13(3) of 1973 was published thereby proposing to amend the master plan of Ghaziabad in respect of road alignment of 150' wide Ghaziabad to G. T. Road - -Hapur road, at Ghaziabad. The Petitioner and others filed objections. Thereafter the proposed amendment was allowed vide order dated January 14, 1982. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the above said notification dated January 14, 1982, and commanding the Respondents not to give effect to the said order. On being served, the writ petition was contested on behalf of Respondent State. Reply in the form of affidavit of Anil Kumar Goel, Junior Engineer, Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad was filed. An application dated 9.2.87 on behalf of Respondent No. 3 was filed to the effect that subsequent to the filing of writ petition the State Government vide notification No. 824/1/37/ -3 -6 -Mah/83, dated 18.2.85 published in Dainik Hindustan dated 21.2.85 had again proposed to amend the Ghaziabad master plan. Objections were invited within 30 days. The proposed amendment in the master plan also included further change of alignment of 150' wide master plan road joining G. T. road which was the subject -matter of the writ petition. Objections were received and after hearing the objectors the proposed amendment was allowed which became operative on 1.1.1986 when the notification was published to that effect. On this basis, the dismissal of the writ petition was sought.
(3.) THE case of the Respondents in the reply is that draft master plan for the development of Ghaziabad city was prepared in 1960. The master plan road in question did not exist in the said master plan. It was shown about one furlong away to the west from the present location. On either sides of the master plan road as shown in 1960 there was residential area and, therefore, the Petitioner's factory fell in the residential area on the east of the said road. Apprehending the shifting of his factory at the later stage to the Industrial area, the Petitioner tried to get the location of the master plan road shifted and at the same time got the eastern side of the master plan road declared industrial area instead of residential area. The result was that the said master plan road was shifted to the present location in 1960 at the time of finalisation of master plan. The Petitioner also succeeded in getting the eastern side of the road declared as Industrial area. It was denied that Hari Gopal Mittal got the road carved out at the present location. On these premises, it was asserted that the Petitioner could not have any grievance to the amendment of the master plan. The State Government was not debarred from amending master plan or zonal plan. The State Government was empowered under Section 13 of the Act to amend the master plan and zonal plan more than once. Sub -section (4) of Section 41 does not in any way curtail such power of the Government, rather it attaches finality against any authority. Rather it is provided that such decision of the State Government will not be questioned in any court of law.;