Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. VIMLA DEVI versus COMMISSIONER SAHARANPUR AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Vimla Devi v. Commissioner Saharanpur And Others - WRIT - C No. 36275 of 2001 [2005] RD-AH 6364 (24 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

HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the orders dated 17.11.1998, Annexure-4 to the writ petition and 8.5.2001, Annexure-5 to the writ petition and for not demolishing the constructions raised by the petitioner.

The case set up by the petitoner is that the petitoner who is alleged to be the owner of the land applied for sanctioning of the map for raising certain constructions over the land to the Muzaffarnagar Development Authority. The requisite fee for the said purpose was deposited by the petitioner with the map on 17.10.1998 with the development charges. The Prescribed Authority has sanctioned the plan and the same was handed over to the petitioner for the purpose of raising the constructions. It appears that the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika who has already lost the case from the civil court, made some frivolous complaint. It has been submitted that the copy of the said letter or complaint was never handed over to the petitioner. On the aforesaid basis the competent authority by an exparte order dated 17.11.1998 cancelled the sanctioned map dated 17.10.1998. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed an appeal and the appeal too without assigning any reason, has been dismissed vide its order dated 8.5.2001, Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitoner has approached this Court.

The main contention raised on behalf of the petitoner is that the map was sanctioned by the competent authority after perusing the same and on the basis of the sanctioned map, the petitioner has raised the construction. There was no illegality or it is not the case of the respondents that the construction which has been raised or which is being raised by the petitoner is not according to the sanctioned map. A specific averment in para 14 has been made that prior to the order dated 17.11.1998 no notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner, as such, the order passed by the competent authority cancelling the sanctioned map of the petitioner and for demolition of the constructions are against the principles of natural justice. It has further been submitted by the petitioner that the appellate authority without assigning any reason and without taking into consideration the facts that the map of the petitioner was sanctioned by the competent authority and there was no illegality or irregularity, by a cryptic order, has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide its order dated 8.5.2001. As such, the petitioner submits that the order passed by the respondent is liable to be quashed as the same has been passed without assigning any reason and without following the principles of natural justice.

Notices were issued and an interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner vide its order dated 21.11.2001. A counter affidavit has been filed. The respondent wanted to justify the order only on the ground that as the petitioner has not disclosed the correct fact regarding the title and the matter is pending before the civil court, therefore, the map for the purpose of construction which was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled and the order of demolition has been passed.

I have heard Sri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent and have also perused the record. From the record it is clear that on the basis of the application submitted by the petitioner and after depositing the requisite fee the map was sanctioned for the purpose of construction and the petitioner on the said basis has raised certain constructions. Specific averment made in para 14 of the writ petition regarding not giving any notice or opportunity has not been denied in the counter affidavit. It is well settled that if some order is passed and the right of the person concerned is being affected, the person is entitled for notice and opportunity. If no notice and opportunity has been given, the orders will be treated to be against the well-settled principles of natural justice. The Court has perused the appellate order. The appellate authority has also not recorded any reason as to why the map sanctioned in favour of the petitioner is being cancelled. Only it has been stated that the petitioner has concealed certain facts, therefore, the order sanctioning the map for the purpose of construction has been cancelled. In my opinion it was to be established on the basis of the opportunity to the petitoner whether the petitioner at the time of submission of the map for the purpose of construction has concealed any fact or not. The authority while cancelling the sanctioned map was obliged under the law to give a notice and opportunity to the petitioner. As the same has not been given, in my opinion, the orders passed by the respondents dated 17.11.1998 and the order-dated 8.5.2001 cannot be sustained.

In view of the aforesaid facts the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 17.11.1998, Annexure-4 to the writ petition and 8.5.2001, Annexure-5 to the writ petition are hereby quashed. It is however, open to the respondents to pass appropriate orders according to law after affording full opportunity to the petitioner. No order as to costs.

24.11.2005

V.Sri/-

W.P. No.36275 of 2001


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.