AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vivek Chaudhary, J.—Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Madan Mohan Pandey, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Manish Mishra learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the Lucknow Development Authority.
Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner and orders dated 21.03.2015 and 24.12.2016 and two photographs showing present status of the constructions over the plot of the petitioner submitted by learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel for the Development Authority are taken on record.
Petitioner, Anurag Prajapati, who is son of an Ex. Minister Gayatri Prasad Prajapati, has filed the present writ petition challenging order dated 23.05.2017 passed by the Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, by which, his appeal has been rejected. Petitioner claims that his appeal has been rejected only on the ground that since show cause notice was issued to his father Gayatri Prasad Prajapati, and after hearing his father order of demolition was passed on 25.04.2017, and since his father has not filed any appeal against the said order, hence, his appeal is not maintainable. He claims that on purchase of land by three separate sale-deeds by the petitioner along with his father, on the entire land constructions were jointly made. Therefore, he is as much aggrieved by the order of demolition as his father. In the above circumstances, both the petitioner and his father have right to file their appeals. It is admitted at the bar, on pointing out by learned counsel for respondents, that petitioner on behalf of his father has also filed an appeal which is pending before the Chairman, as his father Gayatri Prasad Prajapati is in Jail for quite sometime. Though on the face of it the relief sought by the petitioner that his petition may be allowed on the short technical point and be remanded back looks innocuous but such a relief would be wrong to be granted in this extraordinary jurisdiction in the facts of the case and for the reasons detailed below.
The facts of the case are that petitioner and his father purchased land by different sale-deeds in the year 2012 and on 07.02.2015 they applied for sanction of a residential map. The said map was rejected by order dated 23.03.2015 as defects pointed out were not removed. Thereafter, on 18.06.2015 again another revised map was submitted for sanction. It appears that no order was passed on the said map and they again submitted an application No.52363 on 20.12.2016 for sanction of another residential map. The said application was rejected on 24.12.2016 on the ground that before approval of the map the construction had been already started by the petitioner. None of the aforesaid orders were ever challenged. There was no map for sanction pending before the Authority. Petitioner claims that since people living in the area were trying to grab the land of petitioner, hence, he raised a boundary wall. It is nowhere mentioned in the writ petition that he ever raised any constructions on the plot other than boundary wall. It appears that without having any sanctioned map petitioner proceeded to raise constructions over the said property. The officers of the respondents-Development Authority, who were aware of the said constructions, never took any steps to stop petitioner or his father from raising any constructions as he at that time was a Minister in the State Government. The facts that officers of respondents authorities were aware of illegal constructions is proved by their own order dated 24.12.2016, by which they rejected the map submitted by the petitioner and his father, which contains only one reason that the same is rejected as the constructions have already started. This fact itself proves the collusion of the officers of the Development Authority with their political boss. Even after permitting the said constructions to be made illegally, till now, i.e. more than six months have passed, they have not demolished the said illegal constructions and have permitted them.
Petitioner has also filed a map as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition, which is a map of residential house having separate rooms as are normally in a residential house. The photographs of the spot clearly shows that the constructions are not as per the map which is filed by the petitioner as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition. As on face of it, it is a commercial building having a basement, ground floor and first floor all in the shape of one single long floor with no partition. Petitioner, further claims that on 07.04.2017 he deposited the compounding fee of Rs. 10,000/-. Petitioner has not filed any application or map or any documents to show as to for what purpose the said compounding fee of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited. Even the counsel for the Development Authority could not explain as to why the said compounding fee has been permitted to be deposited when nothing was pending before the Development Authority. Petitioner has tried to argue that since the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been accepted, hence, illegal constructions are bound to be compounded by the Development Authority. It sense logic as to how when even the map is not pending for approval, the compounding fee can be deposited and on the basis of the same any compounding can be expected by the petitioner. The above facts clearly show that in high handed manner a Minister of the State has raised unauthorized constructions and for one or other technical reason the Development Authority is not taking any steps to demolish the same.
Thus, it is apparent that the officers of the Development Authority permitted the petitioner to raise a commercial building without any sanction map on a residential plot. It is admitted at the bar by both the parties that a demolition order has been passed on 25.04.2017, against which an appeal was filed by the petitioner on 09.05.2017 and the said appeal was rejected by order dated 23.05.2017. There is another appeal filed by the petitioner on behalf of his father against order of demolition dated 25.04.2017, which is pending. It is also admitted by the parties that till date, there is no stay order passed by any authority to stay demolition. Despite the said facts, no efforts have been made by the officers of the Development Authority to demolish the said illegal constructions. The aforesaid facts by itself prove that the officers are in collusion with the petitioner and his father and for reasons best known to them or not taking any effective steps of demolition of illegal constructions. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to hear the matter only on technical grounds and remand the same to the same officers, who are acting against the very letter and spirit of the statute, which they are required to uphold.
In these circumstances, there is no case made out for grant of any relief in favour of the petitioner, who neither on merits nor in equity has any case in his favour. It would have been appropriate to dismiss the petition at this stage but in that case this Court has serious doubt that erring officers of the Development Authority would take any action at all against the illegal constructions of the petitioner or against the officers who have permitted such huge constructions to be raised without there being any sanctioned map. The counsel for the Development Authority as well as learned Additional Advocate General have vehemently submitted that their officers are ready and willing to comply with the law and would take immediate steps. They request that the matter be adjourned only for few days and they would submit a report of compliance of law.
In view thereof, put up this matter on Monday i.e.19.06.2017. On the said date, the Chairman of Lucknow Development Authority shall file his personal affidavit showing the steps taken till the said date as against illegal constructions and also against the officers and employees of the Development Authority, who permitted such constructions to be raised by the petitioner and his father in an illegal manner.
Put up this matter on Monday 19.06.2017.