- (1.) This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 3 January 2015, passed by the Vice Chairman of the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad and for a direction upon the respondent authority not to interfere in the running of the Banquet Hall by the petitioner in the premises in dispute. By this order dated 3 January 2015 the Vice Chairman of the Development Authority exercising powers under Sec. 28 -A of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 has directed for sealing of the Banquet Hall.
(2.) It is stated that the petitioner acquired Plot No. 1 admeasuring 1161.72 sq. meters and Plot No. 2 admeasuring 1061.75 sq. meters situated at Chandra Nagar in an auction held by the Development Authority and in terms of the allotment letter dated 30 March 2000 possession of the plots was given to the petitioner on 22 September 2000. The petitioner submitted a site plan in respect to Plot Nos. 1 and 2 and a common site plan was approved by the Development Authority by sanction letter dated 4 October 2000. Subsequently, sale deeds were executed by the Development Authority for these two plots in favour of the petitioner on 18 December 2000. The petitioner claims to have established a Banquet Hall on the two plots in 2003, and according to the petitioner the Banquet Hall has been running since then after the grant of completion certificate by the Development Authority on 30 July 2003. The Development Authority, however, passed the order dated 3 January 2015 for sealing the premises under Sec. 28 -A of the Act. The order recites that the said Banquet Hall was being run without the permission of the Development Authority and though a notice dated 15 January 2011 was earlier issued to the petitioner under Ss. 26/27/28 of the Act and a notice under Sec. 28 -A dated 9 April 2013 was also issued to the petitioner to file a reply as to why the premises should not be sealed but no satisfactory explanation was offered by the petitioner. It is for this reason that Plot No. 1 was directed to be sealed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Banquet Hall was being run on the basis of a sanctioned plan and that in the absence of the necessary condition for issuance of a notice under Sec. 28 -A of the Act that a notice under Sec. 27 or 28 of the Act must have been previously issued, the order deserves to be set aside. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before the Court various provisions of the Act to which we shall refer to at the appropriate stage.;