Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. KANTA GARG versus U.P.STATE INDUSTRIAL CORP.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Kanta Garg v. U.P.State Industrial Corp. - WRIT - C No. 8759 of 1988 [2005] RD-AH 5348 (8 November 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 37

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8759 Of 1988

Smt. Kamta Garg..............Vs............U.P.S.I.D.C. and others

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble (Mrs.) Saroj Bala, J.

The petitioner had applied for allotment of approximately 5000 sq. metres of land by the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Agra, (hereinafter referred to as ''U.P.S.I.D.C.). It appears that the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. had developed an industrial area known as Mathura-B and the plots were open for allotment. The petitioner has been allotted plot No. G-1 in Industrial Area Mathura-B admeasuring 7212 sq. metres approximately for the purposes of setting up of Hotel, Office and Shopping Complex with Auto Reparing Centre. After the allotment of the plot, the petitioner had made an application before the Mathura Brindaban Development Authority for sanctioning the plan. The Mathura Brindaban Development Authority had informed the petitioner's husband that as the lay out plant got sanctioned by the U.P.S.I.D.C., the plot in question has been shown as industrial plot, the plan/map for construction of Hotel, Office and Shopping Complex cannot be approved unless and until the land user is got changed by the U.P.S.I.D.C. whereupon the petitioner approached the U.P.S.I.D.C. for doing the needful.

The Regional Manager, Agra vide letter dated 13th April, 1988, (copy of which has been filed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition) had declined to take any action upon the request made by the petitioner on the ground that under the terms of the allotment letter the responsibility for getting the plan of the Hotel, Office and Shopping Complex with Auto Repairs, approved by the Mathura Brindaban Development Authority, was her sole responsibility and therefore no action is required to be taken at their end.

We have heard Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned senior

counsel assisted by Shri M.K. Nigam and Rahul Sahai on behalf of the petitioner and have perused the writ petition, the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit exchanged between the parties.

From a perusal of the allotment letter, (a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition) it is seen that U.P.S.I.D.C. had allotted the plot No. G-1 in Industrial Area Mathura-B to the petitioner for setting up of Hotel, Office and Shopping Complex with Auto Repairing Centre.

Thus the purposes for which the plot in question has been allotted was very well within the knowledge of U.P.S.I.D.C., even though under the terms of the allotment letter referred to above, the sole responsibility for getting the plan approved lay with the petitioner, yet if the land used for which the plot has been approved is not changed, the Mathura Brindaban Development Authority could not have sanctioned the plan/map. The Regional Manager of the U.P.S.I.D.C. while rejecting the request of the petitioner for considering the change of land used of the plot in question appeared to have laboured under some misconception. The responsibility for getting the map/plan sanctioned was of the petitioner but the question, as to whether the land used should be changed or not was to be considered and decided by the authorities of U.P.S.I.D.C. This having not been done, the order/letter dated 13th April, 1988, filed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.

Regional Manager, U.P.S.I.D.C. is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a month from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him.

The writ petition is succeeds and is allowed.

Dated: 8.11.05

T. Sinha.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.