CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Krishna Kumar and Another vs Vice-Chairman, Moradabad Development Authority and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 27 May 1997 · Citation: (1997) 05 AHC CK 0170

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.P. Goel, J · Ravi S. Dhavan, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.M.W.P. No. 4766 of 1994
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 356 words

Ravi S. Dhavan and V.P. Goel, JJ.—This petition has been put up for admission. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. R.P. Goel. Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri V.K. Agrawal, sought time to file rejoinder-affidavit. The counter-affidavit was served on behalf of the Petitioner on 8.4.1994, three years ago. In the circumstances, the Court does not consider appropriate that any further time be granted for filing a reply to the counter-affidavit.

2.

Counsel has been heard. The court has perused the pleadings, the writ petition and the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the Moradabad Development Authority.

3.

After reading the counter-affidavit, the facts are found otherwise than given by the Petitioners. The sequence of the events is that despite being cautioned not to proceed with the construction, the Petitioners did so. Any construction that the Petitioners had undertaken, they had done so at their risk. The Petitioners admit in the writ petition that they have submitted a revised plan. What the Petitioners are suggesting that the construction has been made without permission but it may be considered for compounding. Compounding cannot be had as easily as it is asked for. Certain constructions cannot be made as they are prohibited by law. These are illegalities, which are incurable. These cannot be compounded. The building has to be removed. What is within the law may be considered for compounding. This aspect the Court has considered in detail in two judgments, in re : Jan Sankalp Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd., Agra v. Agra Development Authority, Agra and Ors. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1295 of 1994. decided on 26.8.1996. and Smt. Bimla Devi and Anr. v. Allahabad Development Authority and Ors. 1997 ALR 98.

4.

Thus, of any exercise on considering the revised plan of the Petitioners, it can only be accorded in accordance with law in the light of the two decisions (supra). If the Petitioners feel dissatisfied with the decision of the Moradabad Development Authority, they can seek redress under the provisions of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

5.

The petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 7 February, 1994, is discharged.