- (1.) D. S. Sinha, J. In the instant petition the Mathodist Church in India, Bareilly, had challenged the two officers of the Deputy, Secretary, Bareilly Development Authority, Bareilly, dt. 17-6-1987 and 15-7-1987, true copies whereof are enclosed as Annexure-V to the petition, and Annexure-III to the affidavit, filed in support of the amendment application respectively. Through these orders the constructions, being raised by the petitioner, have been declared illegal and it has been called upon to demolish them. The events, giving rise to the instant petition, are as follows:
(2.) ON 14-3-1983, the petitioner submitted to the Bareilly Development Authority, Bareilly, hereinafter referred to as the Development Authority, a plan for approval and permission under S. 14 of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 hereinafter called 'the Act' for raising certain constructions at 95, Civil Lines, Bareilly. The plan was approved and the requisite permission for raising constructions was accorded by means of an order dt. 11-11-1983, a true copy whereof is Annexure-I to the petition. This order was subject to several conditions. ONe of the conditions, namely, condition No. 6, was that the period of approval and permission would be three years and in the event of non-completion of the construction within the said period fresh approval and permission would have to be taken for raising the remaining constructions. Only after about two and a half months of the approval and permission a communication dt. 27-1- 1984, true copy whereof is Annexure-II to the petition, was issued from the office of the Development Authority, purporting to inform the petitioner that by means of an order dt. 24-1-1984 the plan submitted by the petitioner had been rejected. The actual order dt. 24-1-1984, referred to in the said communication, is Annexure-9 to the counter-affidavit of Sri Varma Jeet, Deputy Secretary, Development Authority, files along with the application, praying the Court to vacate the ex parte interim order. Thus, two conflicting orders, one approving the plan and according permission to raise constructions, and, the other rejecting the plan submitted by the petitioner, creating an embarrassing situation, came into existence. Quite naturally, it was a difficult situation for the petitioner and, it appears, the matter was taken up to the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The Government, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the entire matter ought to be reconsidered. Accordingly, the Deputy Secretary, Avas Anubhag-3 of the U. P. Government wrote a letter dt. 8-4-1985 to the Development Authority, advising reconsideration and a fresh action according to law. This letter is on record as Annexure-III to the writ petition.
(3.) IN pursuance of the advice of the Government tendered to it the Development Authority reconsidered the entire matter and took a fresh decision to the effect that the approval and permission, accorded on 11-11-1983, would stand restored and be operative, and the order of cancellation dt. 24-1-1984 would, in the circumstances stated in the file, become ineffective. This decision of the Development Authority was communicated to the petitioner by means of a letter dt. 30-5-1985. A true copy of this letter dt. 30- 5-1985. is Annexure-IV to the petition. The net result was that the order dt. 11-11-1983, approving the plan and according sanction to raise constructions, which remained inoperative after the order dt. 24-1-1984, revived and became operative on 30-5-1985, entitled the petitioner to proceed with the constructions on the basis of the approval and permission granted by the Development Authority vide order dt. 11-11-1983. And the petitioner embarked upon the proposed constructions.;