Arun Tandon, A.P.Sahi - (1.) -Petitioner before this Court had made an application for sanction of the site plan qua construction over the plot situate at Nai Basti Jumma Colony, Degree College Road, Rampur. The site plan so submitted by the petitioner is stated to have been granted/approved by the Rampur Development Authority vide letter dated 15th May, 2008 bearing Site Plan No. 284/RDA/07-08. The petitioner is stated to have deposited the requisite fee also. The petitioner was, however, served with a notice by the Prabhari Adhikari Waqf/District Magistrate, Rampur dated 21st October, 2008 stating therein that the petitioner has encroached upon the land of kabristan and has raised unauthorized construction over the land of the kabristan. The petitioner was required to appear before the District Magistrate/Prabhari Adhikari of the waqf, failing which it was provided that appropriate proceedings shall be taken ex parte.
(2.) THE petitioner is stated to have submitted a reply to the said letter on 27.10.2008 by speed post, when as a matter of fact he was required to appear in person before the authority concerned on 27.1.2008. However, in paragraph 13(f) of the supplementary-affidavit filed today, it has been stated that the petitioner has in fact visited the office of the District Magistrate on the date fixed, however, he was not available in the office. The Rampur Development Authority, however, by means of the order dated 23.10.2008 cancelled the site plan, as was earlier approved vide letter dated 15th May, 2008, referred to above, on the ground that the petitioner had got the site plan approved in respect of a land which she claimed to be the owner on incorrect facts, inasmuch as the land in question is earmarked for public utility. The order so passed by the Secretary, Rampur Development Authority has been challenged before this Court by means of the present writ petition. Initially the petitioner made an attempt to allege that the site plan No. 284, referred to in the impugned order, does not pertain to the plan as was approved for the petitioner. However, on being pointed out that the number of site plan as mentioned in the impugned order is one and the same, as is mentioned in the letter approving the site plan of the petitioner dated 15.5.2008 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), the said contention was withdrawn.
(3.) THE petitioner thereafter contended that the Rampur Development Authority had no jurisdiction to review its order, inasmuch as once the map has been sanctioned, cancellation of such map on whatever ground will amount to review and since no power of review has been conferred under the statutory rules, such exercise cannot be undertaken. In alternative it was contended that if sub-section (9) of Section 15 of the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 is read to be the source of power for cancellation of the site plan approved earlier, such order can only be passed after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in view of the specific language of the said provision. It is, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the Development Authority cancelling the site plan, earlier approved, is legally not justified. Sri S. K. Mishra, counsel for Development Authority, in reply submits that notice was issued to the writ petitioner by the District Magistrate as is apparent from Annexure-8 to the writ petition although in different capacity namely being the Prabhari Adhikari, Waqf. Since the petitioner did not respond to the said notice, the District Magistrate in his other capacity as the Vice Chairman of the Rampur Development Authority has rightly directed cancellation of the site plan of the writ petitioner. He submits that the petitioner in fact has encroached upon the land of the kabristan and therefore this Court may not interfere with the order so passed.;