- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners raising the grievance that the respondent Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad (hereinafter called the ''Authority') has demolished the constructions raised by them and, therefore, this Court must issue a direction to the respondent authorities to initiate criminal prosecution against respondent Nos. 4 to 9 by lodging First Information Report against them; restrain the Authority from further demolishing the existing constructions of the petitioners at 3-B, Tashkant Marg, Allahabad and to pay compensation for the damages suffered by the petitioners.
(2.) The petition has been resisted by the Authority on the ground that it is evident from the records and own admission of the petitioners that the constructions that had been raised, are in violation of the sanction plan and also against the land user inasmuch as the area is clearly earmarked for residential purpose, whereas the petitioners are running a Nursing Home and attempting to construct the full-fledged Nursing Home.
(3.) This matter came up for hearing on 11.05.2005 before this Bench and again on 13.05.2005. Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners sought time to file supplementary affidavit. However, it was suggested by him that Shri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Authority may file a short counter affidavit annexing the relevant documents for the purpose and petitioners be given an opportunity to file a rejoinder affidavit and matter be listed on 18th May, 2005. The counter affidavit on behalf of the Authority was served on petitioners on 17.05.2005 and it was pointed out that in view of the supplementary affidavit dated 13th May, 2005 filed by the petitioners, it was evident that the constructions which were sought to be demolished had been raised in flagrant violation of Rules in this respect. The matter was heard on 18.05.2005 and again on 24.05.2005. The hearing could not be concluded, and Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Counsel was replaced by Shri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel. The matter was listed for further hearing on 25.05.2005 and after hearing the matter at length, it was directed to be listed again on 26th May, 2005 and as the arguments could not be concluded due to paucity of time on that date, the following order was passed:- "During the course of the arguments it has been submitted by Shri Saxena that the validity of the provisions of Section 28 of the Act, 1973, is restricted to Clause 5 and the learned Additional Advocate General Shri Sudhir Agarwal, may advance the arguments only to the validity of the said Clause 5 of Section 28 of the Act, 1973 only and not to the whole provision. For paucity of time arguments could not be concluded. Put up tomorrow for further hearing after fresh." ;