High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Suman Gupta v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Urban Planning & Devlp. & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 51888 of 2003  RD-AH 457 (21 November 2003)
COURT NO. 34
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 51888 OF 2003
Suman Gupta ------ Petitioner
The State of U.P. & ors. ------ Respondents
Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J
Hon'ble D.P.Gupta, J.
Heard Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Saurav Srivastava, holding brief of Shri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
The controversy involved in this case is that the petitioner has been served the notice under Sections 27 and 28 of the U.P. Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to the Act 1973) alleging that he is raising the unauthorised construction, that is, in violation of the plan sanctioned by the respondent-authorities.
Petitioner has already filed the objection against the said notice. However, besides the said objection for determining the issue involved, the respondents are not permitting the petitioner to raise the construction further, and instead of deciding the issue finally disposing of the objection of the petitioner, filed in pursuance of the notice under Sections 27 and 28 of the Act 1973, the respondents have served a notice for demolition under Section 27 of the Act 1973.
Shri Verma has submitted that unless the respondents dispose of the objection filed by the petitioner in pursuance of the notice under Sections 27 and 28 of the Act 1973 there was no occasion for the respondents to issue the notice under Section 27 of the Act 1973 for demolition.
However, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered opinion that the respondent authorities before proceeding with the order of demolition should dispose of the objection filed by the petitioner against the show cause notice issued under Sections 27 and 28 of the Act 1973, and unless the said objection is disposed of, the question of passing the order for demolition does not arise.
Thus, in view of the above, we dispose of this writ petition requesting the respondent no. 3, the learned Vice Chairman, Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi, to dispose of the objection filed by the petitioner by a speaking and reasoned order within a period of ten days from the date of filing a certified copy of this order before him, and in case some minor defects or minor violation of the sanction plan is pointed out by the said authority, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to remove the same, or consider the application for compounding the same, if permissible in law at this stage, and while passing the order, the petitioner should be given an opportunity of hearing either in person or through some representative and communicate the order to the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed, he shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for appropriate relief at that stage.
Till the matter is decided by the respondent no. 3, status quo as on today, shall be maintained. Neither the petitioner shall raise any construction nor respondents shall demolish the construction already raised.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.