Smt. Angoori Devi and Others vs N.O.I.D.A. and Another

Anjani Kumar, J.—Heard Dr. Madhu Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri U. S. Awasthi and Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

The petitioners, by means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for the following reliefs :

(a) To issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the construction of the petitioners without taking course u/s 27 of the Act and without giving any opportunity of being heard.

(b) Any other suitable order, direction or writ in the circumstances of the case which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper.

(c) An award for cost.

The aforesaid reliefs are asked for on the ground that provisions of Section 27 of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, have not been complied with inasmuch as the petitioners have not been afforded any opportunity before the alleged removal of the constructions belonging to the petitioner on the plot in question.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been stated that the plot in question was already acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and has been handed over to the respondents, which is an authority constituted under the provisions of the U. P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, (hereinafter called the Act) Sri Awasthi appearing for the respondents has relied upon Sections 12 and 17 of the Act which provides that the provisions except to certain provisions referred in Sections 12 and 27 of the Urban Planning and Development Act contained in Chapter VIII of the Act which has not been made applicable by virtue of Section 12 of the Act.

In this view of the matter, this argument on behalf of the petitioners is misconceived and cannot be accepted.

This petition is devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated.