- (1.) RAVI S. Dhavan and V. P. Goel, JJ. This petition has been put up for admission. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. R. R Goel, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri V. K. Agrawal, sought time to file rejoinder af fidavit. The counter-affidavit was served on behalf of the petitioner on 8-4-1994, three years ago. In the circumstances, the Court does not consider appropriate that any fur ther time be granted for filing a reply to the counter-affidavit.
(2.) COUNSEL has been heard. The Court has perused the pleadings, the writ petition and the counter- affidavit, filed on behalf of the Moradabad Development Authority. After reading the counter-affidavit the facts are found otherwise than given by the petitioners. The sequence of the events is that despite being cautioned not to proceed with the construction, the petitioners, did so. Any construction that the petitioners had undertaken, they had done so at their risk. The petitioners admit in the writ petition that they have submitted a revised plan. What the petitioners are sug gesting that the construction has been made without permission but it may be considered for compounding. Compounding cannot be had as easily as it is asked for. Certain con structions cannot be made as they are prohibited by law. These are illegalities, which are incurable. These cannot be com pounded. The building has to be removed. What is within the law may be considered for compounding. This aspect the Court has considered in detail in two judgments, in re: Jan Sankalp Sahkari was Samitis Ltd. Agra v. Agra Development Authority, Agra and others. [c. M. W. P. No. 1295 of 1994 dated 26-8-96] and Smt. Bimla Devi and another v. Allahabad, Development Authority and of [1997alr98] Thus, of any exercise on considering the revised plan of the petitioners, it can only be accorded in accordance with law in the light of the two decisions (supra ). If the petitioners feel dissatisfied with the decision of the Moradabad Development Authority, they can seek redress under the provisions of U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
(3.) THE petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. THE interim order dated 7 February, 1994, is discharged. Petition dismissed. .;