Allahabad High Court
M/S Ozone Builders And Developers ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 7 September, 2020
Bench: Shashi Kant Gupta, Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12685 of 2020 Petitioner :- M/S Ozone Builders And Developers Private Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kshitij Shailendra,Sumit Daga Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed, interalia, for the following relief:
(ii) Issue a writ or direction or pass an order in the nature of mandamus commanding the Principal Secretary (Awas) , civil Secretariate, Lucknow U.P. i.e. the respondent no. 1 to redress the grievance of the petitioner by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law on the petitioner's statutory representation dated 8.7.2020 under section 41(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning & Development act, 1973 (Annexure no. 13 to the writ petition) as expeditiously as possible and within such shortest possible time frame which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a renowned builder engaged in the activity of developing projects of commercial and residential nature and the petitioner planned to make the city extension in Aligarh under the name & style of " Ozone City" as per the guidelines of the Central and State Governments. He further submitted that in order to develop the ozone city, the petitioner bifurcated plant development in five phases, out of which, the 1st phase was completed in the year 2013 and 2nd phase was completed in September, 2013. He further submitted that for the purpose of developing residential schemes for the people belonging to lower income group (LIG) and economically weaker section (EWS), the State Government issued a Government Order dated 5.12.2013 containing certain guidelines which provides that " in case any builder wants to develop a Township over an area more than 10 crores, it would mandatorily construct 10% houses for EWS and 10% houses for LIG out of total dwelling units proposed in the Township."
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in pursuance of the aforementioned Order, the petitioner got sanctioned three maps i.e. Map Nos. 43/15, 10/15 and 84/15 on 15.1.2013( for three phase), on 3.6.2017 ( for 4th phase) and on 101.2014 ( for 5th phase). He further submitted that as per the sanctioned map of 3rd phase, the petitioner developed land by constructing road, park , sanitation , sewer lines , electrification and also constructed 10% EWS houses and 10% LIG houses and huge investments were made as to comply with the directions of the State Government . He further submitted that the petitioner constructed 60 EWS houses and 60 LIG houses after investing a sum of Rs. 8,61,00,000/- and information of completion of such construction was given to the respondent development authority on 17.12.2015. He further submitted that so far as the sale of EWS and LIG houses is concerned, the Committee constituted by the District Magistrate , Aligarh could sell just 30% EWS and LIG houses out of total 120 houses, wherefrom the petitioner could realise only Rs. 2,61,00,000/- while a sum of Rs. 6 crores reamained blocked on account of no sale of 70%.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for redressal of his grievances, the petitioner has filed a representation on 8.7.2020 under section 41(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973 before the respondent no.1 which is still pending before the said authority and despite filing of the said representation, the coercive action is being taken against the petitioner. He further submits that the concerned authority may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a stipulated period of time and till disposal of the said representation no coercive action may be taken against the petitioner. Ms. Kritika Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has no objection to the request so made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent no. 1 to dispose of the aforementioned representation of the petitioner dated 8.7.2020 (Annexure 13 to the writ petition ) within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner .
It is open for the petitioner to adduce any cogent evidence, if any, in support of his contention and take all legal pleas as permissible in law.
It is further made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the concerned authority has to decide the matter on its own merits.
For a period of six weeks from today or till the disposal of the representation, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner.
Order Date :- 7.9.2020 MLK