- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. The petitioner No. 1, who is the landlord of the land situate at X-9, Civil Station, Sardar Patel Marg, Allahabad and petitioner No. 2. a builder and developer of the building raised on the said site, have approached this Court assailing the order dated 18. 5. 2007, passed by the Vice Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad (hereinafter called the 'development Authority') rejecting the application for compounding of unauthorised constructions raised against the sanctioned map/plan over the plot in dispute and issuing a direction to the Zonal Officer under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the 'act 1973') to take appropriate action against the petitioners.
(2.) THE petitioner No. 1, owner of the aforesaid plot, i. e. , X-9, Civil Station, Sardar Patel Marg, Allahabad, entered into a builder's agreement with M/s. Tulsiani Construction and Developers Limited on 15. 6. 2004 for construction of a commercial-cum-residential complex at the said site. A building plan for construction of commercial-cum-residential complex was sanctioned by the Development Authority on 13. 7. 2004. It appears from the record that the petitioners raised unauthorised constructions over the said plot as the setback and parking area in the building are not in conformity with the sanctioned plan. THE Development Authority issued notices under Sections 27/28 of the Act 1973 and they were asked to stop the construction work and were called upon to show cause before the appropriate authority. A revised plan seeking compounding of deviations from the original sanctioned plan/map was submitted by the petitioners before the Development Authority on 20. 2. 2006. Here, it may be pertinent to mention that while hearing a public interest litigation this Court in Writ Petition No. 2547 of 2005, Anand Mohan v. Union of India and others, on 6th March, 2006, passed a general order restraining the Development Authority from compounding constructions raised in deviation of the sanctioned plan. In between, a draft Master Plan for Allahabad had been submitted by the Authority, for approval before the Governor of the State of U. P. , which stood approved vide order dated 12. 7. 2006 with immediate effect and the said new Master Plan is known as "master Plan 2021". Application dated 20. 2. 2006 for compounding of the unauthorised constructions was rejected by the Vice Chairman of the Development Authority on 29. 6. 2006 and an order for demolishing the unauthorised and illegal construction was also issued on 3. 7. 2006. However, the order passed by this Court on 6. 3. 2006 was modified on 3rd August, 2006 and the ban was lifted vide order dated 3rd August, 2006.
(3.) WHILE entertaining an application filed by the present petitioners in the same Public Interest Litigation, this Court vide order dated 17. 10. 2006 directed the Development Authority to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners for compounding the unauthorised constructions. Petitioners submitted their application alongwith a revised map on 14. 11. 2006 seeking compounding of the unauthorised constructions. Petitioners subsequently filed another application in the said Public Interest Litigation complaining that in spite of the order of this Court dated 17. 10. 2006, applications were not being considered and decided. This Court on 8th March, 2007, directed the Development Authority to decide it and communicate the order to the petitioners. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners received notice dated 9. 3. 2007 informing them that they had not acted upon the direction of the authorities for providing parking place as directed earlier and that their requests for compounding and approving the revised plan had already been rejected and order of demolition had already been passed on 30. 7. 2006. Further approaches were made by submitting applications and placing revised maps. Petitioners also filed Writ Petition No. 19486 of 2007, Shri Syed Madsidgar Husain Rizvi and another v. Stc. te of U. P. and others challenging the said order rejecting the application for compounding. The said writ petition was disposed vide judgment and order dated 16. 4. 2007 in view of the statement made by Shri Navin Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Development Authority that it had taken a decision to reconsider the whole case as it had launched a special drive for considering such cases. Immediately thereafter, a notice dated 20. 4. 2007 (Annexure-27) was served upon the petitioner No. 1 stating that there was a special meeting of the Development Authority for reconsidering the cases of compounding of unauthorised constructions on 23rd, 24th and 25th April, 2007 in Indira Bhawan Compound and if the petitioner No. 1 was interested, he could file the revised map for compounding the unauthorised construction. It is further borne out from the record that the petitioners were called upon for personal hearing on 30. 4. 2007 and 5th, 10th, llth, 16th and 18th May, 2007. Orders were passed for joint inspection of the site on 26. 4. 2007 and 9. 5. 2007. From the records, it transpires that on the note sheet from pages 32 to 40, the concerned official has carried out a detailed calculation in respect of the deviation in the sanctioned plan and also the extent of compoundable and non-compoundable constructions. The petitioners were allowed inspection of record on 11. 5. 2007 and 14th May, 2007 was fixed. The Development Authority fixed 15th May, 2007 for joint inspection of the site and the petitioners were further required to appear for personal hearing on 16. 5. 2007. Notices were sent to the petitioners through Speed Post and simultaneously, the same were affixed at their residences. A joint inspection was carried out on 15. 5. 2007 and copy of the measurement etc. was given to the parties concerned. The matter was fixed for hearing on 18. 5. 2007 but the petitioners failed to appear on the said date fixed.;