Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M/S Rehman Frozen Food Exports v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 75827 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 7509 (14 December 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).


Court No. 36

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 75827 of 2005

M/S Rehman Frozen Food Exports vs State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Mishra, appearing for the Development Authority.

The contention of the petitioner is that the land over which the petitioner made construction, has been included in the "master plan" or "zonal development plan" in June/July 2005 and the petitioner had made construction before that, and therefore no sanction of the construction plan was required under the U.P.Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.  Sri A.K. Mishra has brought to our notice the Notification by which the village-Sarnamuradnagar, where the petitioner's factory is constructed, had been included in the Development Area" of the Respondent-Development Authority since 1972.  Earlier it was "regulated area" under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958, and after creation of the Development Authority, it was brought within the territory of "development area".

Apparently, the petitioner was under misconception that unless land is included in the master plan, the development plan is not required to be sanctioned by the Development Authority.

The legal situation is that no development can be carried out over any land included in any "development area" without sanction of Development Authority u/s 14 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.  Master plan has nothing to do with the sanction, except that the Development Authority cannot grant sanction for a purpose inconsistent with the master plan.

Because according to the petitioner substantial construction has been made, therefore, we allow the petitioner ten days time to apply for compounding the construction, which has been made, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Development Authority.

The Development Authority will consider whether the structure of the petitioner is compoundable as whole or in part and any part which is not compoundable will be demolished by the petitioner himself within two weeks of the date on which the decision of the Development Authority is communicated to the petitioner, subject to the right of appeal of the petitioner before the Chairman.

If the construction plan which has already been submitted by the petitioner purposes further construction than what exists on the spot today, the said plan will be examined for sanction, in accordance with law, after compounding is made or refused as the case may be.

If the compounding request is made by the petitioner within 10 days from today and no dilatory tactics are adopted subsequently also, the Development Authority will not demolish any part of the construction.  The petitioner will also not raise any further construction in the garb of this order.

Dated: 14.12.2005



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


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 |

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