NEETA AGARWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER/CHAIRMAN, ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2009-8-176
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 25,2009

Neeta Agarwal Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner/Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad Respondents

JUDGEMENT

TARUN AGARWALA,J - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the order dated 19th July, 2000, passed by the Secretary of the Allahabad Development Authority directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorised construction within 15 days from the receipt of the order, failing which, an order for demolition of the property at the expense of the petitioner would be passed. The petitioner's appeal before the Commissioner was also dismissed by an order dated 14th May, 2002.
(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is that the dispute relates apparently to plot No. 33 Darbhanga Colony, Allahabad which was originally owned by Labh Singh. This plot No. has now been changed to plot Nos. 129 and 129/1 Darbhanga Colony. It is alleged that Labh Singh died in 1967 and that the property devolved in equal shares upon Nirmal Singh and Surendra Singh. On 23rd of August, 1991, one portion of the plot was sold to respondent No. 3, Smt Shanti Rani Agarwal by means of a registered sale deed and that the said respondent came in possession of it. On 1st February, 1993 a registered agreement to sell was executed between the petitioner and Surendra Singh for a sum of Rs. 5/- lacs for sale of 430.03 sq. mtrs of land, pursuant to which, a registered sale deed was executed between the parties on 19th of February, 1994. Prior to the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, a notice is alleged to have been issued by the Allahabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) to one person known as Shyam Agrawal, resident of 33 Darbhanga Colony, in which it was alleged that the said person had raised unauthorised construction of a room, a garage and a latrine, and therefore, directed the said person to remove the unauthorised construction within 15 days. The said notice is alleged to have been served by affixation on 25th February, 1994, and subsequently, an order dated 4th of March, 1994 was passed under Section 27 of the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against Shyam Agrawal for removal of the unauthorised construction from the plot in question. It is further submitted that another order dated 29th October 1994 was passed under Section 27 of the Act for removal of the unauthorised construction.
(3.) THE matter remained at that stage and no further action was taken by the Authorities. On 19th July, 1997 Sanjay Agrawal, son of respondent No. 3 purchased a part of plot No. 33 Darbhanga Colony, and subsequently thereafter, filed a complaint dated 25th July, 1998 before the Authority regarding unauthorised construction being raised by the petitioner. In this complaint, it was alleged that the petitioner was raising construction of a balcony on the first floor and was also erecting a gate and that he had also covered the setback. On this complaint, the Junior Engineer submitted a report on 17th August, 1998 and again on 22nd August, 1998 indicating therein that the petitioner had raised unauthorised constructions and recommended that an order for demolition be passed. It seems that no further action was taken by the Authority and the respondent made further representation on 19th July, 1999 and again on 4th of August, 1999, and when nothing happened, the said respondent filed Writ Petition No.26146 of 2000 which was disposed of by an order dated 25th May, 2000 directing the Authority to decide the representation.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.