Satish Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P.

A.P. Sahi and Vivek Kumar Birla, JJ.—Heard Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-authority. The petitioner has come up questioning the order passed by the Agra Development Authority, Agra dated 3.4.2012 whereby his representation has been rejected on the ground that the land in dispute over which the petitioner alleges to have raised constructions, has been earmarked as a park and also for other purposes under the Master Plan which now stands revised after the approval of the Zonal Plan. The same has been approved by the State Government as per the provisions u/s 13 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

The finding recorded is that with regard to alteration in the user of the land was proposed under a public notice which was published in hindi dailies "Dainik Jagran" and "Amar Ujjala" in the year 2006, whereafter objections were invited. The petitioner did not choose to file any objections to the said public notice whereafter the Zonal Plan was approved and sent to the State Government, which has been finalised taking the shape of Agra Development Authority Master Plan 2021.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected holding that the land in question has already been reserved for a park and a part of the said land is also shown in the road widening plan of Master Plan 2021.

The constructions, which have been raised by the petitioner, do not appear to have been made after any due sanction of a map or a plan by the respondent-Development Authority. In such circumstances, there being no challenge raised to the competence of the State Government in changing the Master Plan or approving the Zonal Plan, no such relief can be granted to the petitioner as prayed for which is only for quashing of the order dated 3.4.2012.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that certain change land user has been permitted on which the finding recorded is that two wrongs cannot make a right. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has been unable to point out any such provision under which such alteration of user can now be permitted by this Court after the Master Plan has already been finalised and published.

Sri Sharma then contends that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Medical Trust Vs. B.S. Muddappa and others, and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of D.D. Vyas and others Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad and another, the location of the park cannot be altered.

Learned Counsel submits even otherwise there was land available with the authority to relocate the park for which certain suggestions has been made.

Sri Sharma is correct to this extent and location or relocation cannot be altered without any procedure being followed in this regard, but in the instant case the alteration which is permissible under the provisions of 1973 Act has been carried out after due public notice in the newspapers. The petitioner claims to be ignorant about such notice. A public notice in the newspapers cannot be discarded as such allegations. Admittedly, the petitioner did not file any objection in relation to the proposed alteration in the Master Plan.

In these circumstances, this petition, which has been filed in 2012 after six years of the alteration of the Master Plan in the year 2006-2007 cannot be entertained. Even otherwise no other ground has been raised to challenge the Master Plan, which is a Legislative act.

Consequently, we do not find any merit in this petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, rejected.