AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.K. Jain, J.—Being a satellite town of the national capital New Delhi, Ghaziabad developed potentially. It was declared as a regulated area as back in the year 1958. Consequently a draft master plan for this regulated area was prepared in the year 1969 under the provision of Section 10A of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act"). As required u/s 10A (3) of the Act the said draft master plan was published thereby inviting public objections. The above said 1970 Act was repealed and was replaced by U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the 1973 Act). Proposing specific amendment in the Ghaziabad master plan thereby changing the alignment of 150'' wide road Joining G. T. Road to Ghaziabad--Hapur road, notification dated 21.11.1977 was published u/s 13(3) of 1973 Act. Objections were filed on behalf of the Petitioner and others. After affording opportunity of hearing to the objectors, notification dated 18.3.80 u/s 13(4). 1973 was published in the gazette on May 17, 1980 effecting the proposed amendment.
On September 17, 1984, another notification u/s 13(3) of 1973 was published thereby proposing to amend the master plan of Ghaziabad in respect of road alignment of 150'' wide Ghaziabad to G. T. Road--Hapur road, at Ghaziabad. The Petitioner and others filed objections. Thereafter the proposed amendment was allowed vide order dated January 14, 1982. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the above said notification dated January 14, 1982, and commanding the Respondents not to give effect to the said order.
On being served, the writ petition was contested on behalf of Respondent State. Reply in the form of affidavit of Anil Kumar Goel, Junior Engineer, Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad was filed. An application dated 9.2.87 on behalf of Respondent No. 3 was filed to the effect that subsequent to the filing of writ petition the State Government vide notification No. 824/1/37/-3-6-Mah/83, dated 18.2.85 published in Dainik Hindustan dated 21.2.85 had again proposed to amend the Ghaziabad master plan. Objections were invited within 30 days. The proposed amendment in the master plan also included further change of alignment of 150'' wide master plan road joining G. T. road which was the subject-matter of the writ petition. Objections were received and after hearing the objectors the proposed amendment was allowed which became operative on 1.1.1986 when the notification was published to that effect. On this basis, the dismissal of the writ petition was sought.
The case of the Respondents in the reply is that draft master plan for the development of Ghaziabad city was prepared in 1960. The master plan road in question did not exist in the said master plan. It was shown about one furlong away to the west from the present location. On either sides of the master plan road as shown in 1960 there was residential area and, therefore, the Petitioner''s factory fell in the residential area on the east of the said road. Apprehending the shifting of his factory at the later stage to the Industrial area, the Petitioner tried to get the location of the master plan road shifted and at the same time got the eastern side of the master plan road declared industrial area instead of residential area. The result was that the said master plan road was shifted to the present location in 1960 at the time of finalisation of master plan. The Petitioner also succeeded in getting the eastern side of the road declared as Industrial area. It was denied that Hari Gopal Mittal got the road carved out at the present location. On these premises, it was asserted that the Petitioner could not have any grievance to the amendment of the master plan. The State Government was not debarred from amending master plan or zonal plan. The State Government was empowered u/s 13 of the Act to amend the master plan and zonal plan more than once. Sub-section (4) of Section 41 does not in any way curtail such power of the Government, rather it attaches finality against any authority. Rather it is provided that such decision of the State Government will not be questioned in any court of law.
Before proceeding further, it is worth mentioning here that on the ground that if the impugned notification dated 14.1.82 is quashed, he shall suffer irreparable loss inasmuch as the said master plan road will pass through his plots, Hart Gopal Mittal filed an application for impleadment as Respondent No. 3. After hearing the parties, vide order dated 18.11.83 he was directed to be impleaded as Respondent No. 3.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that after holding an enquiry under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act the State Government had made the amendment and published the same in accordance with Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. This order had become final and in the light of the provisions of Section 41(4) of the Act the said order could not be reviewed or altered by the State Government. in support of his argument he has relied upon Sardar Govindrao and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, . We do not find any force in this submission. Chapter IV of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 deals with the amendment of master plan and zonal development plan. It is comprised of Section 13 only. The State Government has been empowered to amend the master plan under Sub-section (2) of Section 13, whereas the procedure to amend the master plan is provided under Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 13 of the Act.
A perusal of Section 41 of the Act would show that it creates no impediment for the State Government to amend the master plan or the zonal development plan more than once. Chapter VII of the Act contains supplemental miscellaneous provisions. It is comprised of Sections 25 to 60. Section 41 talks of the control by the State Government for the efficient administration of the Act itself. It reads as under:
Control by State Government.-
(1) The Authority, the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman shall carry out such directions as may be issued to it from time to time by the State Government for the efficient administration of this Act.
(2) If in, or in connection with, the exercise of its powers and discharge of its functions by the Authority or the Chairman under this Act any dispute arises between the Authority or the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman and the State Government, the decision of the State Government on such dispute shall be final.
(3) The State Government may, at any time, either on its own motion or on application made to it in this behalf, call for the records of any case disposed of or order passed by the Authority or the Chairman for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed or direction issued and may pass such order or issue such direction in relation thereto as it may think fit:
Provided that the State Government shall not pass an order prejudicial to any person without affording such person a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
(4) Every order of the State Government made in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court.
A perusal of Sub-section (4) of Section 41 would show that it does not create any bar to the power of the State Government to amend the master plan or the zonal development plan which had already been amended under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. It only creates bar of jurisdiction of the courts in entertaining any suit thereby challenging any order passed by the State Government under the Act. Otherwise also it is a matter of common knowledge that in a developing State as that of ours, the development plans are required to be amended again and again with the changing needs of the society which is not static. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it could be said that once the master plan or zonal development plan is amended under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. it could not further be amended by the State Government. The only procedural, mandatory statutory requirement to be fulfilled by the State Government before amending the master plan is that it shall publish a notice in at least one newspaper having circulation in the development area inviting objections and suggestions from any person with respect to the proposed amendment before such date as may be specified in the notice, and shall consider such objections and suggestions that it may receive. Further every amendment made u/s 13 shall be published as provided under subsection (4) of Section 13 of the Act. It is nowhere provided under the Act that once the master plan or the zonal plan is amended according to Section 13 of the Act it could not be amended again. We have also gone through the judgment cited at the Bar. We are afraid the ratio of the said case cannot be grafted on the facts and circumstances of this case.
Secondly it is urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the impugned order had been passed for mala fide consideration in order to illegally benefit the colonizer. This submission pales into insignificance because mala fides are always to be alleged against a particular person. But herein no such allegation has been levelled against any particular person, nor any such person has been arrayed as Respondent by name in this petition. Although it has been submitted that this order had been passed mala fide to illegally benefit the colonizer who had sold certain plots to relations of high ups in politics, yet neither the colonizer is named nor the persons to whom plots had been allegedly sold nor the high ups to whom such purchasers of the plots were related have been named.
Thirdly, it is argued that about 100 sq. mtrs. land of the Petitioner''s factory will be included in the master plan according to the amendment thereby causing irreparable injury to the Petitioner and making the functioning of the factory highly inconvenient. in reply it has been submitted that as a matter of fact a negligible area of the Petitioner''s factory will be used in the proposed road by virtue of the amendment. On the other hand, it is submitted that the amendment will increase the value of the factory of Petitioner because it will provide additional convenient approach to his factory from the main road. Be that as it may, the fact remains that all the objections of the Petitioners were heard by the competent authority u/s 13(3) of the Act before effecting the amendment in the master plan. Therefore, this argument also does not find favour with us.
It is worthwhile to mention here that vide application of February 9, 1987 filed on behalf of Respondent No. 3 it has been brought on record that subsequent to the filing of the present writ petition the State Government had again published a notification dated 18.2.85 thereby proposing to amend the master plan inviting some change in the alignment of 150 feet vide master plan road adjoining G. T. Road which is subject-matter of this petition. Objections were invited. No objections were filed on behalf of the Petitioner. After hearing the objections filed by different persons, the amendment in the master plan was effected which became operative with effect from 1.6.86. The notification was published in accordance with Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act in Hindustan Times of 1.6.86. in view of this fact this petition has become infructuous otherwise also.
In view of the above discussions, we do not find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.
After the judgment was dictated, learned Counsel for the Petitioner prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law of general public importance is involved in this petition. Therefore, there is no question of granting leave to appeal to Supreme Court. in view of this the prayer of learned Counsel for the Petitioner for leave to appeal to Supreme Court is declined.