Allahabad High Court
M/S Tanya Marketing Private Limited vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 6 March, 2024
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:40216 Reserved on : 27.02.2024 Delivered on : 06.03.2024 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13146 of 2022 Petitioner :- M/S Tanya Marketing Private Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ali Jamal Khan,Mamta Singh,Mukesh Chandra Gupta,Shubham Prakash Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Jagannath Maurya,Shiv Prakash Gupta Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Through this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 28.03.2022 passed by respondent no. 1 under Section 41(3) of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1973") and order dated 06.03.2021 passed by Meerut Development Authority (hereinafter referred as "the Authority") exercising power under Section 27(1) of the Act of 1973. The prayer has also been made for directing the respondent-Development Authority to remove the seal from the petitioner's firm.
2. Facts leading to the present case, are that petitioner is engaged in the business of meat processing, after obtaining license from Agriculture and Processed Food Product Export Development Authority, Delhi (APEDA). The factory of the petitioner is situated at Khasra No. 81, 82, 70, 55A, 55B, 56A, 56B, 57, 59 and 60, Alipur, Jijwana, Hapur Road, Meerut. It is also registered under the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).
3. It had sought a No Objection Certificate from District Magistrate, Meerut in the year 2013 for establishing an integrated meat processing plant and slaughtering house on the aforesaid khasra number. On 06.06.2013, conditional No Objection Certificate was granted, wherein it was provided under Clause 12 to seek permission from Development Authority in regard to construction of building. The condition further provided that permission from Pollution Control Board, Lucknow was also required before establishing the integrated meat plant.
4. The petitioner without approval of sanction of map by the Authority had constructed the plant, pursuant to which a notice dated 27.03.2017 under Section 27(1) was issued. Immediately, on 30.03.2017, the petitioner moved an application for compounding of construction of factory raised on Khasra Nos. 81 and 83. Certain objections were raised by the Authority on 12.09.2017. Since the objections were not removed, the Authority rejected the compounding application on 19.01.2018. Thereafter, petitioner again on 12.01.2019 moved another application for reconsideration of sanction of map and compounding the construction raised by him. The application was rejected on 11.02.2019 for not removing the objections. The Enforcement Officer of the Authority passed an order on 25.02.2019 to seal the premises, and on 27.04.2019, the premises was sealed.
5. Petitioner challenged both order dated 11.02.2019 and 25.02.2019 through an appeal before Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. On 01.07.2019, the Commissioner directed the Authority to decide the matter afresh after making verification, but refused to interfere in the sealing order of the premises. The petitioner filed a revision under Section 41(3) before State Authority, which was decided by order dated 31.10.2019 requiring the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut to decide the appeal afresh.
6. The appeal was reheard, and on 20.01.2020 the order dated 11.02.2019 was set aside and the Authority was directed to decide the matter regarding sealing of petitioner's premises. Pursuant to said order, Authority issued notice to petitioner on 15.02.2020 and on 03.07.2020 to remove the objections raised by Authority on compounding application. Simultaneously, a letter was sent on 11.09.2020 to Chief Town and Country Planner seeking instructions with regard to width of the road as provided under Para 2.3 of Building Construction and Development Bye-law, 2008. On 14.10.2020, Chief Town and Country Planner provided the guidelines. According to which, non residential and commercial area where the land is put to industrial use, the width of the road must be at least 12 meter wide whose length is 200 meter. In case length of road is between 201 and 400 meter, the width should be 18 meter, and in case of length of road from 401 meter to 1000 meter, the width should be 24 meter. While those roads whose length is more than 1000 meter, the width should be 30 meter.
7. In the meantime, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 14410 of 2020, wherein an interim order was passed on 17.12.2020 and sealing order was stayed. The Authority complying the order passed an order on 28.12.2020 desealing the premises in question.
8. On 01.02.2020, petitioner had again moved an application for compounding and sanction of map of construction raised over Khasra No. 55A, 55B, 56A, 56B, 57, 59, 60, 70, 81 and 82. As the industrial activity was being carried in agricultural area, the Committee under Zonal Regulations submitted its report on 11.11.2020 and recommended not to compound the map. The report of the Committee was approved by Meerut Development Authority Board in its 116th meeting on 09.02.2021.
9. The Vice-Chairman of the Authority on 06.03.2021 rejected the application for compounding in light of the report of the Committee and approval of the same by the Board. Pursuant to order of Vice-Chairman, authorised officer of the Authority on 08.03.2021 again passed an order for sealing of premises and on 09.03.2021, the factory premises was sealed by the Authority. Against the order of sealing as well as order dated 06.03.2021, petitioner preferred a revision under Section 41(3) before State Government which was rejected by order impugned dated 28.03.2022. Hence, this writ petition.
10. Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that along with application for compounding and sanction of map a total of Rs.45 lacs has already been deposited by petitioner but the Authorities have not considered the said fact and simply on extraneous consideration proceeded to reject the application for compounding and sanction of map. According to him, meat processing plant came into existence subsequent to No Objection Certificate having been issued by District Magistrate, Meerut in the year 2013. The plant is situated 500 meter away from the main Hapur Road. According to him, the Committee in its report had found that there was no uniform width of the road and it ranged from 8.5 meter to 14 meter while the minimum standard prescribed width is 12 meter.
11. He then contended that there is no coherence in the report of Chief Town and Country Planner and the decision taken by the Committee as well as the order passed by Vice-Chairman, Meerut Development Authority on 06.03.2021 regarding the width of road on which the integrated meat processing plant is situated and the minimum required standard. He has tried to point out the discrepancy in the various reports and orders of the Authority, Chief Town and Country Planner and Committee. He lastly contended that closing down the project would create financial hardship to petitioner and will render several people jobless who are employed in the factory.
12. Sri J.N. Maurya, learned counsel appearing for the Authority submitted that the very No Objection Certificate granted by District Magistrate, Meerut on 06.06.2013 enumerated various conditions to be fulfilled before setting up of the integrated meat processing plant and slaughtering house. One of the essential conditions given in Para No. 12 was sanction of map and permission by Development Authority before plant starts. According to him, neither any application was made for sanction of map nor permission was sought before starting the commercial production. It was on 27.03.2017 that notice under Section 27(1) was issued, pursuant to which the petitioner had submitted a compounding application, on which the Authority had raised certain objections which were not fulfilled/complied by petitioner leading to rejection of application for compounding/sanctioning of map. Till date, the petitioner has not complied the objections which has led to rejection of compounding application twice as well as the revision by State authorities. Further, the Development Authority is ready to refund Rs.45 lacs submitted by petitioner.
13. He then contended that as per the Zonal Regulations of Authority, industrial activity in agricultural areas is permissible with special permission of the Board. Admittedly, petitioner's unit for meat processing is situated in an agricultural area, therefore, as per Zonal Regulations, the matter was required to be scrutinized by the Committee under Zonal Regulations. The matter was referred to the Committee so constituted, and after examining in the light of the provisions, it submitted its report on 11.11.2020 and recommended not to compound the map in view of fact that plant was situated on a 12 meter wide road which is 500 meter away from the main Hapur Highway, and as per the requirement, the width has to be 24 meter.
14. He has relied upon Para No. 2.3.2 of Building Construction and Development Bye-law, 2008 (as amended in 2011 and 2016) of Meerut Development Authority, wherein the width of road is provided in case of non residential and commercial area, which is used for industrial purpose. The said provision provides width of road at 24 meter in case it is 401 to 1000 meter in length. In the instant case, the plant is situated 500 meter away from the main highway, thus, the required width of the road is 24 meter for starting a commercial activity.
15. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
16. The short question which arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether the Authority and the State Government was justified in rejecting the application for compounding and sanctioning of map post granting of No Objection Certificate by District Magistrate, Meerut in the year 2013 for setting up integrated meat processing plant and slaughtering house with certain conditions.
17. It is an admitted case to both the parties that petitioner had applied for No Objection Certificate from District Magistrate for setting up an integrated meat processing plant and a slaughtering house on Khasra No. 81, 82, 70, 55A, 55B, 56A, 56B, 57, 59 and 60 situated at Village-Alipur, Jijwana, Hapur Road, District-Meerut.
18. The grant of No Objection Certificate was conditional, subject to fulfilling 12 conditions laid down in the No Objection Certificate dated 06.06.2013. Condition No. 2 relates to the permission from U.P. Pollution Control Board which was necessary prior to production being started in the factory. Condition No. 12 clearly provided that before starting construction, permission of Development Authority was required and the procedures for building construction was compulsorily required to be followed. Relevant Conditions 2 &12 are extracted hereasunder:-
"2- उद्योग इकाई में परीक्षण / उत्पादन तब तक प्रारम्भ नहीं किया जायेगा जब तक कि वह उत्तर प्रदेश प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्ड, लखनऊ से जल एवं वायु प्रदूषण के अधिनियमों के अन्तर्गत सहमति प्राप्त न कर लें। जल एवं वायु की सहमति प्राप्त करने हेतु इकाई में उत्पादन प्रारम्भ करने की तिथि से, कम से कम 2 माह पहले निर्धारित सहमति आवेदन पत्र उत्पादन पूर्व प्रथम आवेदन का उल्लेख करते हुए इस कार्यालय में अवश्य जमा कर दिये जायें। यदि उधोग उपरोक्त्त का अनुपालन नहीं करता है तो उक्त अधिनियम के वैधानिक प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत उद्योग के विरुद्ध बिना किसी सूचना के विधिक् कार्यवाही की जा सकती है।
12- निर्माण कार्य प्रारम्भ होने से पूर्व विकास प्राधिकरण की अनुमति प्राप्त की जाये एवं भवन निर्माण के सम्बन्ध में अन्य नियमों / शासनादेशों का फर्म द्वारा अनुपालन किया जाना आवश्यक होगा।"
19. The petitioner had established the meat processing plant and raised construction without any sanction of map by the Authority, resulting in notice issued by the Authority under Section 27(1) of the Act of 1973 on 27.03.2017. Compounding application filed on 30.03.2017 was not processed as certain objections were raised by the Authority on 12.09.2017, which remained unattended by petitioner resulting in the rejection of the application on 19.01.2018. Thereafter, second application was moved for the same cause of compounding the offence by petitioner which had again resulted in the rejection on 11.02.2019 which had led to the various challenge by petitioner before Commissioner through an appeal, before this Court through writ petition and before State Government in revision under Section 41(3) of the Act of 1973. In all the proceedings, the Authorities found that illegal construction raised by petitioner could not be compounded as per the bye-laws of Meerut Development Authority.
20. Master Plan, 2021 for Meerut was approved by State Government on 13th October, 2006 and was published and came into effect from 23rd October, 2006. The Master Plan, 2021 provides for the land used in zones for different activities. Under the category "public use", slaughter house has been mentioned at 6.6 wherein land falling under agricultural area, special permission has to be taken before its use.
21. Once a master plan has been finalised and implemented, it cannot be changed by any Authority exercising discretion for the reason that procedure for change of master plan is envisaged in the statute which needs to be followed and is mandatory.
22. Reference to certain provisions of the Act of 1973 is necessary for better appreciation of the case. The Act of 1973 gives due importance to master plan and zonal development plan. Section 8 and 9 are of great importance as they provide for master plan for development area and zonal development plan, which are extracted hereasunder:-
"8. Civil survey of, and master plan for the development area. - (1) The Authority shall, as soon as may be, prepare a master plan for the development area.
(2) The master plan shall -
(a) define the various zones into which the development area may be divided for the purposes of development and indicate the manner in which the land in each zone is proposed to be used (whether by the carrying out thereon of development or otherwise) and the stages by which any such development shall be carried out; and
(b) serve as a basic pattern of framework within which the Zonal. development plans of the various zones may be prepared.
(3) The master plan may provide for any other matter which may be necessary for the proper development of the development area.
9. Zonal Development plans. - (1) Simultaneously with the preparation of the master plan or as soon as may be thereafter, the Authority shall proceed with the preparation of a zonal development" plan for each of the zones into which the development area may be divided.
(2) A zonal development plan may-
(a) contain a site-plan and use-plan for the development of the zone and show the approximate locations and extents of land uses proposed in the zone for such things as public buildings and other public works and utilities, roads, housing, recreation, industry, business, markets, schools, hospitals and public and private open spaces and other categories of public and private uses;
(b) specify the standards of population density and building density;
(c) show every area in the zone which may, in the opinion of the Authority, be required or declared for development or re-development; and
(d) In particular, contain, provisions regarding all or any of the following matters, namely-
(i) the division of any site Into plots for the erection of buildings;
(ii) the allotment or reservation of land for roads, open spaces, gardens, recreation-grounds, schools, markets and other public purposes:
(iii) the development of any area Into a township or colony and the restrictions and conditions subject to which such development may be undertaken or carried out,
(iv) the erection of buildings on any site and the restrictions and conditions in regard to the open spaces to be maintained in or around buildings and height and character of buildings:
(v) the alignment of buildings of any site;
(vi) the architectural features of the elevation or frontage of any building to be erected on any site,
(vii) the number of residential buildings which may be erected on plot or site;
(viii) the amenities to be provided in relation to any site or buildings on such site whether before or after the erection of buildings and the person or authority by whom or at whose expense such amenities are to be provided:
(ix)the prohibitions or restrictions regarding erection of shops. work-shops, warehouses of factories or buildings of a specified architectural feature or buildings designed for particular purposes in the locality,
(x) the maintenance of walls, fences, hedges or any other structural or architectural construction and the height at which they shall be maintained:
(xi) the restrictions regarding the use of any site for purposes other than erection of buildings;
(xii) any other matter which is necessary for the proper development of the zone or any area thereof according to plan and for presenting buildings being erected haphazardly, in such zone or area."
23. Section 10, 11 and 12 are of great relevance as they provide for submission of plan to State Government for approval, and the procedure to be followed in preparation and approval of plan, further the date of commencement of plan. Master Plan, 2021 has already been implemented in the city of Meerut since the year 2006.
24. Chapter IV of the Act of 1973 provides for amendment of master plan and zonal development plan. Section 13 is of great importance as it provides amendment of plan, which reads as under:-
"13. Amendment of Plan. - (1) The Authority may make any amendments in the master plan or the zonal development plan as it thinks fit, being amendments which, in its opinion do not effect important alteration in the character of the plan and which do not relate to the extent of land uses or the standards of population density.
(2) The State Government may make amendments in the master plan or the zonal development plan whether such amendments are of the nature specified in Sub-section (1) or otherwise.
(3) Before making any amendments in the plan, the Authority, or as the case may be, the State Government shall publish a notice in at least one newspaper having circulation in the development area inviting objections and suggestions from any person with respect to the proposed amendments before such date as may be specified in the notice and shall consider all objections and suggestions that may be received by the Authority or the State Government.
(4) Every amendment made under this section shall be published in such manner as the Authority or the State Government, as the case may be, may specify, and the amendments shall come into operation either on the date of the first publication or on such, other date as the Authority or the State Government, as the case, may be, may fix.
(5) When the Authority makes any amendments in the plan under Sub- section (1) it shall report to the State Government the full particulars of such amendments within thirty days of the date on which such amendments come into operations.
(6) If any question arises whether the amendments proposed to be made by the authority are amendments which effect important alterations In the character of the plan or whether they relate to the extent of land-uses or, the standards of population density, it shall be referred to the State Government whose decision, thereon shall be final.
(7)Any reference in any other Chapter, except Chapter III, to the master plan or the zonal Development plan shall be construed as a reference to the master plan or the zonal development plan as amended under this section."
25. Section 16 puts an embargo on the use or permit to be used of any building or land in a planned area otherwise than in confirmity with such plan. The proviso however provides that in case on the date of enforcement of plan, the land or building was used in any other manner, the same would continue subject to terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the bye-laws. Section 16 is extracted hereasunder:-
"16. Uses of land and buildings in contravention of plans. - After the coming into operation of any of the plans in a zone no person shall use or permit to be used any land or building in that zone otherwise that in conformity with such plan :
Provided that, it shall be lawful to continue to use, upon such terms and conditions, as may be prescribed by bye-laws made in that behalf, any land or building for the purposes and to the extent for and to which it is being used upon the date on which such plan comes into force"
26. The No Objection Certificate granted by Collector on 06.06.2013 was conditional that integrated meat processing plant and slaughter house to come up pursuant to sanction/permission by the Authority. Neither any permission was sought nor map was sanctioned.
27. Section 26 talks of the penalties to be imposed by the Authority in case of use of land or building, in violation of plan, and where development of land has been allowed to any person or body in violation of the condition of such development plan, such infraction is an offence punishable under this provision.
28. Section 27 talks for order of demolition of building, where any development has been commenced or is being carried on or has been completed in contravention of the Master Plan or without permission approval or sanction referred to in Section 14, subject to procedure laid, an order for demolition shall be passed.
29. The offences under the Act of 1973 are compoundable under Section 32 which reads as under:-
"32. Composition of Offences. - (1) Any offence made punishable by or under this Act, may either before or after the institution of proceedings, be compounded-by the [Vice-Chairman (or any officer authorised by him in that behalf by General or Special order)] on such terms, including any term as regards payment of a composition fee, as [the Vice-Chairman] (or such officer) may think fit.
(2) Where an offence has been compounded, the offender, if in custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings shall be taken against him in respect of the offence compounded.
30. Thus, the question which arises that once the master plan and the zonal plan has been enforced in the District-Meerut and there being no challenge to the same, the petitioner was required to follow the norms as provided under them.
31. The integrated meat processing plant and slaughter house was sought to be established pursuant to permission granted by District Magistrate on 06.06.2013 which was subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. One of the necessary condition was prior approval of the Development Authority in regard to sanction of map before project started. The words, "निर्माण कार्य प्रारम्भ होने से पूर्व विकास प्राधिकरण की अनुमति प्राप्त की जाये" are of great relevance. The petitioner was bound to make application for permission and sanction of map prior to starting the construction over the land on which the integrated meat processing plant was going to come up. No such application or permission was sought before raising construction, and it was only when the factory was operational and notice under Section 27(1) was issued, that the petitioner tried to get the offence compounded under Section 32 of the Act of 1973.
32. Master Plan, 2021 clearly provides in clause 6.6 that slaughter house can come up in an agricultural area only on a special permission granted by Development Authority.
33. Bye-law 2.3.2 lays down the width of the road for the land used in non residential area where the commercial activity is carried out. It clearly provides that width of the road must be minimum 12 meter in case of its length upto 200 meter, in case of a commercial establishment situated on the road whose length is 201 meter to 400 meter, its width has to be 18 meter. While in case of road whose length is 401 meter to 1000 meter, the width is to be 24 meter. Relevant bye-law is extracted here-asunder:-
"(i) अनावासीय क्षेत्र यथा व्यवसायिक, कार्यालय एवं औद्योगिक भू-उपयोग में किसी भी सड़क की चौड़ाई 12 मीटर से कम नहीं होगी, जिसकी लम्बाई अधिकतम 200 मीटर होगी। 201 से 400 मीटर लम्बी सड़क की चौड़ाई 18 मीटर होगी और 401 से 1000 मीटर तक लम्बी सड़क की चौड़ाई 24 मीटर होगी तथा 1000 मीटर से अधिक लम्बी सड़क की चौड़ाई 30 मीटर होगी।
(ii) अन्य मार्गों की चौड़ाई महायोजना / जोनल प्लान में निर्धारित चौड़ाई के अनुसार होगी।"
34. The very purpose of providing minimum width of the road for commercial activity is keeping in mind the movement of heavy commercial vehicles. In the instant case, it is admitted that meat processing plant is situated 500 meter away from main Hapur Highway and comes under the category of 401 to 1000 meter. Thus, minimum width of the road should be 24 meter before the permission is accorded.
35. In Nazir Ahmad Vs. King-Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253, Lord Roche speaking for himself and the other Members held that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. The other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.
36. In Dhananjaya Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka (2001) 4 SCC 9, the Apex Court held that it is a settled principle of law that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain manner, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.
37. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (2002) 1 SCC 633, the Apex Court held that it is a normal rule of construction that when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said Authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itself.
38. In State of Jharkhand & others Vs. Ambay Cements & another (2005) 1 SCC 368, the Apex Court held that whenever the Statute prescribes that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner and also lays down the failure to comply with the said requirement leads to severe consequence, such requirement would be mandatory. It is a cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way. It is also settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is penal in character it must be strictly construed and followed.
39. In Priyanka Estates International Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. State of Assam and others, JT 2009 (14) SC 654, the Apex Court while dealing with violation of sanction or approved plan held that if the offence was not compoundable then necessary consequence of demolition should follow. Relevant para 66 and 73 are extracted hereasunder:-
"66. It is not necessary to deal with the aforesaid judgments of this Court in greater detail as the consistent ratio decidendi of this Court is that if the constructions are in absolute violation of sanctioned or approved plans and are not likely to fall in the category of compoundable items, then the necessary consequence is to order its demolition and seal of approval for such illegal activities is not required to be given by this Court.
73. It is a matter of common knowledge that illegal and unauthorised constructions beyond the sanctioned plans are on rise, may be due to paucity of land in big cities. Such activities are required to be dealt with by firm hands otherwise builders/colonisers would continue to build or construct beyond the sanctioned and approved plans and would still go scot-free. Ultimately, it is the flat owners who fall prey to such activities as the ultimate desire of a common man is to have a shelter of his own. Such unlawful constructions are definitely against the public interest and hazardous to the safety of occupiers and residents of multi-storeyed buildings. To some extent both parties can be said to be equally responsible for this. Still the greater loss would be of those flat owners whose flats are to be demolished as compared to the Builder."
40. In Shanti Sports Club and Anr. Vs. Union of India and others, (2009) 15 SCC 705, the Apex Court while dealing with unauthorised construction which was against the master plan or zonal development plan held as under:-
"74. In the last four decades, almost all cities, big or small, have seen unplanned growth. In the 21st century, the menace of illegal and unauthorised constructions and encroachments has acquired monstrous proportions and everyone has been paying heavy price for the same. Economically affluent people and those having support of the political and executive apparatus of the State have constructed buildings, commercial complexes, multiplexes, malls, etc. in blatant violation of the municipal and town planning laws, master plans, zonal development plans and even the sanctioned building plans. In most of the cases of illegal or unauthorised constructions, the officers of the municipal and other regulatory bodies turn blind eye either due to the influence of higher functionaries of the State or other extraneous reasons. Those who construct buildings in violation of the relevant statutory provisions, master plan, etc. and those who directly or indirectly abet such violations are totally unmindful of the grave consequences of their actions and/or omissions on the present as well as future generations of the country which will be forced to live in unplanned cities and urban areas. The people belonging to this class do not realise that the constructions made in violation of the relevant laws, master plan or zonal development plan or sanctioned building plan or the building is used for a purpose other than the one specified in the relevant statute or the master plan, etc., such constructions put unbearable burden on the public facilities/amenities like water, electricity, sewerage, etc. apart from creating chaos on the roads. The pollution caused due to traffic congestion affects the health of the road users. The pedestrians and people belonging to weaker sections of the society, who cannot afford the luxury of air-conditioned cars, are the worst victims of pollution. They suffer from skin diseases of different types, asthma, allergies and even more dreaded diseases like cancer. It can only be a matter of imagination how much the Government has to spend on the treatment of such persons and also for controlling pollution and adverse impact on the environment due to traffic congestion on the roads and chaotic conditions created due to illegal and unauthorised constructions. This Court has, from time to time, taken cognizance of buildings constructed in violation of municipal and other laws and emphasised that no compromise should be made with the town planning scheme and no relief should be given to the violator of the town planning scheme, etc. on the ground that he has spent substantial amount on construction of the buildings, etc.--K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Town Municipal Council, Udipi [(1974) 2 SCC 506] , G.N. Khajuria (Dr.) v. DDA [(1995) 5 SCC 762] , M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu [(1996) 6 SCC 464] , Friends Colony Development Committee v. State ofOrissa [(2004) 8 SCC 733] , M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(2006) 3 SCC 399] and S.N. Chandrashekar v. State of Karnataka [(2006) 3 SCC 208] .
75. Unfortunately, despite repeated judgments by this Court and the High Courts, the builders and other affluent people engaged in the construction activities, who have, over the years shown scant respect for regulatory mechanism envisaged in the municipal and other similar laws, as also the master plans, zonal development plans, sanctioned plans, etc., have received encouragement and support from the State apparatus. As and when the Courts have passed orders or the officers of local and other bodies have taken action for ensuring rigorous compliance with laws relating to planned development of the cities and urban areas and issued directions for demolition of the illegal/unauthorised constructions, those in power have come forward to protect the wrongdoers either by issuing administrative orders or enacting laws for regularisation of illegal and unauthorised constructions in the name of compassion and hardship. Such actions have done irreparable harm to the concept of planned development of the cities and urban areas. It is high time that the executive and political apparatus of the State take serious view of the menace of illegal and unauthorised constructions and stop their support to the lobbies of affluent class of builders and others, else even the rural areas of the country will soon witness similar chaotic conditions."
41. Thus, in view of various dictums of Apex Court, it is clear that obtaining prior permission is mandatory for raising construction as per the developmental and zonal plan.
42. In the instant case, District Magistrate on 06.06.2013 had granted conditional No Objection Certificate, which mandated for prior sanction/approval of map by the Authority before starting construction. The prior permission was mandatory, therefore, non compliance with the same must result in cancelling the concession made in favour of petitioner.
43. Moreover, the area over which the integrated meat processing plant has been set up falls in the agricultural area and Master Plan of 2021 clearly provides for special permission for setting up a slaughter house in an agricultural area. The bye-laws further confirm that width of the road has to be 24 meter in case the land used is for non residential purpose. The report of the Chief Town & Country Planner which was admitted and approved by the Committee is in consonance with bye-law 2.3.2.
44. The argument raised from petitioner side as to variation in the width of road ranging from 8.5 meter to 14 meter by different authorities has no force. It is an admitted position that meat processing plant is situated 500 meter away from the main Hapur Highway, and the length of road is beyond 400 meter, thus, the width of 24 meter as required under bye-law 2.3.2 cannot be displaced.
45. Petitioner has not brought out any ground of procedural irregularity having done by authorities or the State Government in rejecting the application for compounding/sanctioning of map.
46. Right from the year 1936 till date, the Apex Court is of the view that cardinal principle is that where a statute requires a particular act to be done in particular manner, the act has to be done in that manner alone. In the instant case, there is no challenge to the master plan or the zonal development plan, nor any amendment has been sought of the master plan or the zonal development plan. The area is undisputedly an agricultural area where permission has been sought for setting up a slaughter house, the same can only be granted after due compliance has been done by the petitioner.
47. Composition of offence as provided under Section 32 can only be done when the case falls within the parameter. The statutory Authority cannot go beyond the provision of the statute and bye-laws to compound the offence.
48. The action of the Authority and State Government cannot be faulted as it rests on Clause 2.3.2 of bye-laws which clearly stipulates the condition for running a commercial establishment/industry on the road which is substantially wide enough to bear the burden of heavy commercial vehicles.
49. The bye-laws have been framed keeping in mind the impact of vehicular movement on the road where commercial activity is being carried out since the business is of meat processing and slaughtering, there will be movement of heavy trucks and trolleys, which a narrow lane or road could not bear. Sufficient width of the road is required to felicitate vehicular movement, causing no inconvenience to the other commercial establishment or industry situated near it or the residents using the road.
50. In the instant case, petitioner should have been vigilant and before raising construction he should have complied with the condition laid down by the District Magistrate in the year 2013 itself and before making investment should have got the map sanctioned. In case, application was moved before Development Authority, the petitioner would have come to know that plant could not be established on such a narrow passage of 12 meter, since bye-law required 24 meter width.
51. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that orders impugned do not make out any case for interference exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
52. Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 06.03.2024 V.S.Singh