R. K. Gulati, J. - (1.) THESE two connected writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed by one Khacheru Singh.
(2.) THE petitioner asserts to be the owner of an Abadi plot bearing No. 32/2 in village Mubarakpur Mustkim (Naya Gaon) district Moradabad, having an area of 2.54 acres (10279.38 Sq. metres). Admittedly, the said plot came within the purview of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (For short "the Ceiling Act"). An area of 8,279.38 Sq. metres was declared as surplus land out of the said plot as a result of a draft statement served on the petitioner under Section 8 (3) of the said Act. It is claimed that besides filing of objections to the draft statement, a declaration was also filed under section 21 of the said Act, to the effect that excess land would be used for constructions of 40 dwelling units for the members of the weaker section of society, and for permission for utilising that land in that connection. THE petitioner asserts that in November, 1978, in deference to the wishes of the members of the weaker section of his village, to which he also belongs, he formed a housing society known as "Bhimrao Ambedkar Housing Society", whose object was to construct dwelling units for the weaker section of the residents of petitioner's village and 40 members were enrolled in accordance with Rule 11 framed under Section 21 of the Ceiling Act. It is claimed that in furtherance of G. O. No. 3680/A-49-11 U. P./76 dated 25-1-1976 containing directions regarding constructions contemplated under Section 21 of the Ceiling Act, a Controlling Authority was established with the Commissioner of the Division as its Chairman and on 19th April, 1979 the petitioner submitted an application together with approved site plan by the Town Planner for constructing dwelling units as aforesaid before the Commissioner as Vice-Chairman of Controlling Authority. It is asserted that in the meeting of the Controlling Authority held on 27-9-1979 it was decided to form a Sub-Committee as mentioned in paragraph 9 (b) of the Writ Petition for disposal of the declaration/application under Section 21 of the Act It is alleged that before the matter could progress further, all the applications pending under section 21 of the Ceiling Act, stood transferred to the Moradabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "M. D. A.") which had been created meanwhile for Moradabad under the provisions of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. According to the petitioner, pending his application under section 21 and objections under Section 8 (3) of the Ceiling Act the M. D. A. held an opening ceremony function on 19th June, 1983 in connection with constructions of M. I. G. and L. I. G. flats by it over the land of the petitioner declared surplus under the Ceiling Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court through writ petition no. 9008 of 1983 seeking a writ of mandamus restraining the M. D. A. from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the disputed land and for direction to grant the petitioner's application under Section 21 of the Ceiling Act. The allegations of mala fides have also been made against one Sri Kalka Prasad, the then Vice-Chairman of M. D. A. Moradabad. In the counter affidavit the respondents have brought out that the Writ Petition was filed on incomplete facts suppressing vital and material facts. The case disclosed in the counter affidavit is that an area of 1.92 acres, i. e. 7770.24 Sq. metres from the petitioner's plot along with the land of others aggregating to 22.84 acres, was acquired for the purpose of Moradabad Development Authority vide notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"). The possession of the land was taken on 27-11-1982 which was completely vacant land and there were no constructions thereon. The declaration/application under section 21 was rejected on 11th March, 1982 and no such application was pending when the writ petition was filed or when the possession of the land was taken. The application moved before the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly, together with the site plan had also been rejected by the M. D. A. since the plan submitted was not in accordance with Section 14 read with Section 15 of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
(3.) AFTER the filing of the counter affidavit the petitioner sought amendment of the writ petition and has challenged the validity of the notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Act. From the facts set out in the counter affidavit, it is evident that the reliefs claimed in the writ petition as initially filed, were misconceived. The very premises on which reliefs were sought, were non-existent and in these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the writ petition originally filed.;