- (1.) SAROJ Bala, J. By means of this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. the applicant prays for quashing the Criminal Complaint No. 4434 of 1987 instituted by Bareilly Development Authority, Bareilly and the proceedings initiated in consequence thereof, pending in the Court. of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.
(2.) THE back up facts giving rise to these proceedings are : A Criminal complaint was instituted by the Bareilly Development Authority against the applicant with the allegations that on 2. 8. 1. 984 at about 11 A. M. Sri Y. P. i Singh, Junior Engineer visited her premises No. 35-11/b, Rampur Bagh, Police Station Kotwali Bareilly situated within development area. THE said area was meant for residential land use in the Master plan. On inspection the Junior Engineer found that the applicant, owner of the residential house had let out the first floor about six months before to Regional office of United India Insurance Company for commercial purpose. THE use of residential premises for commercial purpose contravened the land use mentioned in the Master plan and constituted an offence punishable under Section 26 (2) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). Heard Sri Rajiv Gupta holding brief of Sri Dilip Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicant, the learned A. G. A. and have perused the record. Sri Naveen Sinha, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 did not. appear to make submissions. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the contract of tenancy was entered into between the applicant and the Regional Manager of United India Insurance Company on 24. 10. 1973. In pursuance of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act the Bareilly Development Authority was constituted vide Gazette notification dated 20. 4. 1977 and vide Government Order dated 29. 8. 1978 the Master plan was approved by the State Government. The Act came into force on 15. 8. 1974. The contention was that a portion of the house was being used for commercial purpose since before the coming into force of Master plan. It was argued that the proviso appended to Section 16 embodies that in cases where the building is being used for some purpose prior to coming into force of the Act it shall be lawful to use it for the same purpose. Lastly it was canvassed that the offence under Section 26 (2) of the Act are compoundable under Section 32 but efforts made by. the applicant to have the matter compounded failed due to non-cooperation of the' officials of opposite party.
(3.) THE learned A. G. A. submitted that the provisions of Section 27 have come into force and an order passed under Section 27 of the Act is appealable. Section 3 of the Act provides for declaration of development area. If in the opinion of the State Government any area within the State requires to be developed according to plan it may, by notification in the Gazette, declare the area to be a development area. Section 4 of the Act embodies that the State Government may by notification in the Gazette, constitute for the purposes of this Act, an Authority to be called the Development Authority for any development area. The Authority shall be a body corporate, by the name given to it in the-said notification, having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both moveable and immovable and to contract and shall by the said name sue and be sued.;