Allahabad High Court
Swati Goyal And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 29 March, 2023
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker, Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9169 of 2023 Petitioner :- Swati Goyal And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddhartha Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jai Bahadur Singh Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,Chief Justice Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Mr. Siddhartha Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for State-respondent and Mr. Jai Bahadur Singh for respondent nos.2 & 3.
Petitioners, six in numbers, have approached this Court seeking mandamus commanding the respondent Saharanpur Development Authority to decide their application dated 03.02.2023. Effectively, that application has been filed by the petitioners (collectively) to cancel/recall the order dated 1.11.2017 passed by respondent no.3/The Vice Chairman, Saharanpur Development Authority, Saharanpur, cancelling the layout plan submitted by the petitioners. Further prayer has made in that application seeking sanction of the layout map no. 21/05-06 as amended by layout map no. 21 of 2015-16.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, no good ground is made out to issue the writ of mandamus, as prayed.
Undisputedly, the petitioners had collectively filed an application before the respondent authority for sanction of layout plan. It was first granted on 21.10.2005. Later, the petitioners sought an amendment in the layout plan thus sanctioned, vide application dated 16.9.2006. That is also disclosed to have been allowed on 22.03.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner further disclose, they filed another application seeking further amendment of layout plan, which was allowed on 12.08.2015. Thus, the layout plan sanctioned on 21.10.2005, as amended on 12.08.2015, stood sanctioned.
Thereafter, undisputedly, the petitioner no.2 moved an application seeking cancellation of the layout plan.
Leaving aside all details pertaining to the proceedings that were conducted on such cancellation sought by the petitioner no.1, it is undisputed to the petitioners that the said application was enquired into. An enquiry report is stated to have been submitted by the duly constituted committee on 21.09.2017. Still, undisputedly, vide order dated 1.11.2017, respondent no.3/The Vice Chairman, Saharanpur Development Authority, Saharanpur allowed the application made by petitioner no.1 and cancelled the layout plan dated 21.10.2005 as amended on 12.08.2015.
Upon query made, learned counsel for the petitioners candidly states, no challenge was raised by the petitioners either collectively or individually to the order dated 1.11.2017. More than five years have passed since then. That order has attained finality. Even in the present petition, no challenge has been raised to the order dated 1.11.2017.
In view of the above undisputed facts, we have no hesitation to observe, the settlement claimed to have been reached between the parties subsequent to 1.11.2017 i.e. recently, in November 2022, would cause no legal effect and would carry legal bearing on the cancellation order dated 1.11.2017.
Thus, the petitioners may claim no surviving right with respect to layout map that was originally sanctioned in their favour on 21.10.2005 as last amended on 12.08.2015. It stands cancelled on 1.11.2017.
In view of the above discussion, we find no jurisdiction surviving with the Vice Chairman of the Saharanpur Development Authority as may allow us to command the said respondent to decide the application made by the petitioners seeking recall of the order dated 1.11.2017.
Insofar as the petitioners themselves state, the settlement has been reached between them after the aforesaid cancellation order dated 1.11.2017 had come into existence, it is a self-apparent truth that there was no error in that order. Occasioned by the subsequent event and conciliation, the parties may have been able to reconcile their differences. That may entitle them to move a fresh application on fresh terms as may be applicable. However, they may never claim to turn back the clock and see restoration of their rights qua the layout map that stood cancelled by the Development Authority in the facts as had been found existing at the relevant time i.e. on 1.11.2017.
Subsequent and disconnected facts not involving the respondent authority, may allow the parties to re-establish their pre-existing relationships. However, such events may remain extraneous to statutory authorities who may have acted at any earlier point of time on the basis of facts presented to them, at the relevant time.
In view of the above, writ prayed is declined.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.3.2023 Prakhar (S. D. Singh, J.) (Pritinker Diwaker, C.J.)