Allahabad High Court
Rukamani Devi vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 27 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89821-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17103 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rukamani Devi 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 purportedly under Section 27(1) of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, has filed the instant writ petition.
2. The petitioner has purchased Plot bearing No.4, Vrindavan Garden near Aradhna Cinema situated over Khasra no. 913/1, Village- Pasauda, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad by a registered sale deed. The order records that she 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 83.61 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 Saurabh Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 does not dispute that for plot size less than 100 sq. mtrs., no approval is required from 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 :- 27.5.2025 gp