Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Brijesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 23 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta

Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87826-DB
 
Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16775 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.B.Pal,Sanjay Kumar Pal
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Tejasvi Misra
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
 

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

1. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by order dated 29.04.2025 passed by In-charge, Enforcement Zone-7, Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad under Section 27(1) of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 has filed the instant writ petition.

2. The order records that the petitioner has purchased the Plot bearing No.4, Vrindavan Garden near Aradhna Cinema situated over Khasra no.918, Village- Pasauda, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad by a registered sale deed. He could not produce any sanctioned plan and, therefore, the constructions are illegal and direction has been issued for demolition within fifteen days.

3. The sole submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that total plot size is 67.31 sq. mtrs. i.e., less than 100 sq. mtrs. and, therefore, in view of Government Order dated 04.01.2008 no sanction of any building plan is required.

4. Shri Tejasvi Misra, learned counsel for GDA has placed on record the instructions received from GDA and in which also it is not disputed that for plots having area less than 100 sq. mtrs., no approval is granted by the Development Authority. However, he submits that since the plot lies in an unapproved colony and, therefore, the constructions were illegal. The same is not the reason for passing the impugned order, as noted above. The impugned order has been passed solely on the ground that there is no sanctioned plan. The Development Authority cannot be permitted to supplement grounds in support of the order under challenge before this court.

5. Concededly, the plea of the petitioner that area being less than 100 sq. mtrs., no approval was required, has not been considered while passing the impugned order. Consequently, the impugned order is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the respondent-Development Authority for passing a fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Ankit.