- (1.) We are disposing of all the aforesaid writ petitions finally at the stage of admission in view of exchange of affidavits in accordance with the Rules of Court and also as agreed to by learned Counsel for the parties. in fact the Petitioner and Its directors have preferred all the aforesaid writ petitions. We are referring hereunder short facts which are relevant for the disposal of these writ petitions.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the Respondent U.P. Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred as the Corporation) has stated that proceeding for recovery as against the Petitioner in pursuance to the notice under Section 29 of the U.P. Financial Corporation Act has since been withdrawn, all the aforesaid writ petitions except writ petition No. 17868 of 1987 have become infructuous which is denied by the Petitioners' counsel. We having heard learned Counsel do not find any of the aforesaid writ petitions having become infructuous except part of Writ Petition No. 9404 of 1987, hence we proceed to decide them on merit.
(3.) Short facts, according to the Petitioners, are that the Petitioner filed a map before the Development Authority for sanction under Section 15 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 after completing all the formalities, certain objections were raised for removing the defects. Thereafter, on 10.10.1985 the map was sanctioned for the construction of a Hotel building. On 13.12.1985, engineers of the Development Authority inspected the site where certain construction was going on. However, on 12.12.1985, the map was cancelled by the Development Authority without giving any reason. This led to the filing of writ petition No. 577 of 1986 by the Petitioner and by means of an interim order this order was stayed with a direction that the Petitioner shall not make any further construction. Thereafter a notice was served on the Petitioner under sections 27 and 28 of the aforesaid Act, for stopping further constructions which was replied. Then the Vice-Chairman of the Development Authority made an oral suggestion that in case the Petitioner withdraws the aforesaid writ petition and files a revised plan, the matter may be reconsidered which the Petitioner submitted in writing to the authority concerned. However, certain report of an engineer led Into passing an order by the Development Authority for demolition of the construction as against which also the Petitioner filed another writ petition No. 5779 of 1987 in which also the impugned order, as aforesaid, was stayed. All this precipitated and on 13.5.1988 the map was compounded by the Development Authority and the Petitioner deposited the compounding fee to the tune of Rs. 1,15.000.00.;