Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Ultimately, the petitioners contend that they appeared before the Mukhya Nagar Abhiyanta (The Chief City Engineer) of the Allahabad Development Authority and made a request that all the constructions which have been made by deviating from the sanctioned plan be compounded.

Of the accepted petition that the sanctioned plan was violated and deviated and the consiructions were completed, the record bears this out blantantly. Thus, it is contended that a request for revised compounding was submitted for being considered but ultimately the Allahabad Development Authority did not accept the deviations from the original plan and the Administrator of the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad (City Corporation, Allahabad) passed an order on 29 March, 1979 that the illegal constructions should be demolished. It is contended that this order by which the revised plan showing the illegal constructions were not accepted was passed behind the back of the owner of the back of the owner of the properly, i.e, late Kedar Nath Tiwari. Against this order by which demolition of the unauthorised construction had been ordered, an appeal was filed under Section 28(1) of the Act, aforesaid. This was Appeal No: 8 of 1975; Kedar Nath Tiwari v. Secretary, Allahabad Development Authority Allahabad. The appeal lay before the Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority i.e.. the Commissioner, Allahabad Division Allahabad. On the appeal, the appellate authority on 5 May 1980 passed the following order:

Sd/-      
M. M. Verma    Special Secretary"

(Translated from Hindi)

7. In the writ petition, the petitioners basically bank their case on a circumstance that across the road some constructions have been made by others and building regulations have been violated and no set back has been left and yet these constructions have been compounded. The submission is that the refusal to compound the constructions made by the petitioners is discriminatory. The petitioners further stales that even if it is assumed that by some legal jugglery the master plan framed under Act is saved by law, yet no action for contravention Of the said master plan or industrial development plan can be made aground for an action to demolish thier constructions under the law. The petitioners submit that there is no distinction between residential and nonresidential constructions and that there is no known criteria to designate a construction as residential and non residential. The petitioners contended that the illegal constructions on which admittedly they have received no sanction cannot be refused to be compounded on the ground that they are non residential as contradistinguished from industrial constructions.

9. The petitioners had submitted plans for constructions of residential portion, an offece, an annexe to the main building towards the west of the corner plot. What the petitioners constructed ultimately was not a residential building, but shops and flats. Having constructed illegally, then the petitioners wanted a compromise with the authorises that the illegal constructions be overlooked, the matter compromised and compounded and the constructions regularised. The authorities indicated to them that they had violated the law with impunity, breached the faith of the adminsitration by applying to receive a sanctioned plan for constructing a residence, but instead mad non residential building by making shops and letting them about for the purposes of earning rent. The authorities declined to compromise the matter and rejected the prayer for compounding the illegal constructions and consistantly look the view that the constructions so made by the petitioners need to be demolished.

23. The pelitioncrs submit that by a certiorari the High Court quash the order of the Allahabad Development Authority under Section 27(1) of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, requiring them to remove the illegal construction (Annexure-1 to the writ petition dated 30 June 1979); the appellate order under Section 27(2) of the Act, declining to set aside or recall the order of demolishing the constructions (Annexure-5 to the writ petition, dated 5 May, 1980) and under Sections 13(2), 41(3) and 53 of the Act being the order in Revision of the State Government rejecting the prayer to revise the orders of the authorities below (Annexure-6A to the writ petition, dated 29 March, 1983). Certiorari is a certificate to correct an error or illegality of authorities subject to judicial review. The Court has considered the mattercarefully as presented in the writ petition as also examined the original record which was produced before the Court by the Allahabad Development Authority. The Court finds that the authorities below have committed no error, manifest or otherwise, nor illegality in cautioning and preventing the petitioners from constructing and preventing the petitioners from constructing illegally. The petitioners and/or their predecessors-in-interest made the illegal constructions at their risk and peril. The constructions made by the petitioners cannot be compounded. The orders, the quashing of which the petitioners seeks, cannot be quashed and are certified as correct and in accordance with law.