High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Ragini Prasad v. A.D.A. & Another - WRIT - C No. 8324 of 1998  RD-AH 12284 (18 July 2007)
Court No. 10
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 8324 OF 1998.
Smt. Ragini Prasad ......Petitioner.
The Allahabad Development Authority through its
Vice-Chairman and another .........Respondents.
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 37522 OF 1997.
Dr. Kalpana Verma and others .....Petitioners.
The Allahabad Development Authority
and others .........Respondents.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
Hon'ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.
These two writ petitions raise common question of facts and law, therefore, are being disposed of by a common judgment. A counter affidavit has been filed in the writ petition No. 8324 of 1998 which is being taken up for the purposes of argument in both the writ petitions.
Petitioners of both the writ petitions by means of these two writ petition have sought for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant sanction/approval to the plan/map of the petitioners regarding the respective plots in question in bunglow no. 9/7 Motilal Nehru Road, Allahabad. Petitioners have further prayed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to raise any obstruction in the construction of the house by the petitioners as proposed by them in the map/plan submitted to the respondents and not to demolish the constructions already done in the respective plots in question in bunglow no. 9/7 Motilal Nehru Road, Allahabad.
Petitioners have stated in the writ petition that they have submitted the lay out plan of the plot in question for sanction. This fact has been denied in the counter affidavit and it has been stated that the lay out plan submitted by the petitioners has been rejected by the respondents. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the order for demolition of the construction in question was passed on 23rd March, 1998 under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') but the same has not been given effect to because of the interim order passed by this Court in writ petition No. 8324 of 1998. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that against the order of rejection of lay out plan and also the order of demolition, petitioners have a remedy to file an appeal and thereafter a revision under the provisions of the Act.
In these circumstances, we are not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition has no merit and is dismissed accordingly. interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.