Allahabad High Court
Hotel Management Catering & ... vs Nagar Panchayat Daurala Meerut ... on 30 May, 2014
Bench: Ashok Bhushan, Ranjana Pandya
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25236 of 2006
Petitioner :- Hotel Management Catering & Applied Nutrition Educational S.
Respondent :- Nagar Panchayat Daurala Meerut Trhu' Its Admimnstration
Counsel for Petitioner :- Swapnil Kumar,Madan Mohan,Pankaj Mishra,Shiv Sagar Singh,Tarun Agarwal
Counsel forRespondent :-C.S.C., B.Dayal, S.N.Jaiswal
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J)
By this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 5.4.2006 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition).
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 running a Hotel Management Institution in the name and style of Institution of Hotel Management Catering Technology and Applied Nutrition duly recognized by All India Council for Technical Education, Ministry of Human Resources and Development, New Delhi and State Board of Technical Education, U.P., Lucknow and is affiliated to U.P. Technical University, Lucknow and also to Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut and is successfully running its Institution since 1987 from premises 11 R.A. Lines, Meerut Cantt. For the purposes of establishing a new campus for the Institute, the Society purchased 7.5 acres (approximate) of land Khasara Nos. 1475, 1476, 1477, 1478, 1479, 1482, 1484 and 1486 at National High Way No. 58, Pargana Daurala, Tehsil Sardhana, District Meerut and there is no dispute about ownership of the land. This land was situated within the limits of Nagar Panchayat Daurala and, at that point of time, it had framed the bye-laws in exercise of powers under Section 298 (1) of the Nagar Palika Adhiniyam, 1916 for the purposes of sanctioning maps for construction of building within its territorial limits.
The petitioners in accordance with the aforesaid bye-laws, vide application dated 11.3.2003 submitted building plans for the construction of building of the institute. This building plan was prepared by the Government approved and recongnized architect and Engineers and was in conformity with the above bye-laws and also the bye-laws of the Meerut Development Authority even though the area was not within the development area of the MDA. The Nagar Panchayat, Daurala sanctioned the plan. Resultantly, the petitioners deposited the requisite fee for sanctioning the building plans and for development of the land with the Nagar Panchayat Duarala and started constructions of the building of the Institute in April 2003 itself. The constructions had been completed and the building is being used for regular educational work of the Institute and Hostels are also being used and about 200 boys are living there in the administrative block being partly used.
The MDA made a complaint to the Nagar Panchayat, Daurala on 4.3.2006 and stated that the map has been wrongly sanctioned because the area is not within the jurisdiction of Nagar Panchayat, Daurala but copy of the said letter/ complaint written by the MDA was not supplied to the petitioners.
The Nagar Panchayat, Daurala called for a report from the Tehsildar, Sardhana, who submitted his report on 20.3.2006 and stated that Khasara No. 1475 etc. is beyond the limit of Nagar Panchayat, Daurala and it lies within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat, Daurala. The petitioners were not aware about the report of the Tehsildar, Sardhana nor they were supplied a copy thereof, hence, they were not granted an opportunity to controvert and rebut the report of the Tehsildar, Sardhana. The Nagar Panchayat, Daurala served notice dated 22.3.2006 on the petitioners directing them to file reply as to why the sanction granted approving the building plans may not be cancelled since the land was situated outside the limits of Nagar Panchayat, Daurala. The petitioners submitted reply to the show cause notice dated 1.4.2006 stating that the plan was duly sanctioned on 5.4.2003 and the constructions of the building of the Institute are in accordance with the sanctioned map and the MDA has no concern with the land. But, the respondent no. 1 without hearing the petitioners cancelled the sanction of the building plan of the petitioners. The respondent no. 1 has travelled beyond its jurisdiction to do so. Thus, this writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 5.4.2006.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits were exchanged between the parties.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
A perusal of the record shows that on 6.9.2011 this writ petition was decided by this Court whereby the writ petition was dismissed but later on, on the recall/review application, the order dated 6.9.2011 was recalled on 15.3.2013 and, thus, the matter has been heard by us.
Counsel for the respondents has contended that the notice dated 22.3.2006 was given to the petitioners directing them to file reply as to why the sanction of the building plans granted to the petitioners may not be cancelled as the land falls outside its limits and, therefore, the petitioners were granted opportunity to show cause and the order was passed.
In reply the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that although a show cause notice was granted to the petitioners but the copy of the complaint or the report of the Tehsildar was neither annexed to the show cause notice nor the same was provided, hence, issuance of show cause notice was only a formality.
Perusal of the order impugned dated 5.4.2006 shows that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners and they were also heard before the order was passed. The Administrator/ Officer-in-charge, Nagar Panchayat, Daurala passed the following order:-
"mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa esjk ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd bUlVhV~;wV vkWQ gksVy eSustesaB dSVfjax VsDuksyksth ,.M ,IykbM U;wVZz~hf'k;u }kjk rRdkyhu dfeZ;ksa ls lkB&xkaB dj uxj iapk;r dh lhek ls ckgj fLFkr {ks= ij jktLo dh gkfu ds fy;s fu;e fo:/k izdkj ls dfFkr vkosnu fd;k x;k vkSj rRdkyhu v/;{kk rFkk dfeZ;ksa dh lkB&xkaB o dk;Z ds izfr ykijokgh ls laLFkku dks voS/k ykHk igqpkus dh fu;r ls voS/k vuqefr tkjh dh x;h ftldk U;k;fgr esa rRdky fujLr fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA rnkuqlkj ,rn~okjk vius vf/kdkjksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, rRdkyhu v/;{kk Jherh dqlqe nsoh }kjk tkjh vuqefr i=zkad [email protected] i0 fnukad 05&04&03 dks rRdky izHkko ds fujLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh uxj iapk;r nkSjkyk dks ;g fuZns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl fo"k; esa rRdkyhu dfeZ;ksa ,oa laLFkku ds e/; gq;s voS/k d`R; ds fy;s nks"k fo"k;d izkFkfed vk[;k izLrqr djsa rkfd muds lEcU/k esa Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ,oa vU; fof/kd izko/kkuksa ds vUrZxr dBksj fof/kd dk;Zokgh ds vkns'k i`Fkd ls tkjh fd;s tk ldsa A"
The respondent no. 4 in its counter affidavit has specifically stated that when the building plan was sanctioned, at that time plot numbers 1475, 1476, 1477, 1478, 1479, 1482, 1484 and 1486 were covered under the NCR Act and they were not covered under the area of MDA or Nagar Panchayat, Daurala. Arguments have also been advanced that vide Government notification dated 26.6.2003 No. 1223/9-Aa-6-03-M.D.A./72 wherein It has been mentioned that area has been included under the MDA and, thus, the MDA issued notice to the petitioners that they had raised illegal constructions.
On being confronted with this position, the counsel for the petitioners argued that since the constructions were made under the supervision of MDA, it does not lie in its mouth now to say that the constructions are not in accordance with the bye laws and the map was illegally sanctioned. If at all the supervision of the construction was being made by the MDA on the plea that there was a sanctioned map which in fact was wrongly sanctioned then there can be no estoppal against law, therefore, this argument advanced on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner has no legs to stand.
I find the Zonal Officer, Zone 13 MDA Meerut had informed the society that it would be mandatory provision to obtain a completion certificate from the M.D.A. failing which suitable action would be taken against them.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4, it is specifically being denied that plot numbers aforesaid did not lie within the limits of Nagar Panchayat but by notification dated 26.6.2003 the area had been included in the area under the MDA. Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that Nagar Panchayat, Daurala was not vested with any inherent power to review its decision and, thus, it had exceeded its jurisdiction in cancelling the sanction of building plans dated 5.4.2006 and it does not now lie in the mouth of the M.D.A. to say that the constructions are illegal and being constructed against the bye-laws.
Thus, it is clear that the petitioners were heard before the sanction of building plan was cancelled. They had also submitted their reply dated 1.4.2006 and, if a wrong order was passed by any authority, it could very well be recalled after hearing the petitioners. The categorical findings have been recorded that plots over which the building plan was sanctioned on 5.4.2003 were not in the territorial limits of Nagar Panchayat Daurala, which makes the order dated 5.4.2003 without jurisdiction. An order passed without jurisdiction does not confer any right and has rightly been recalled by Nagar Panchayat. Thus, the order recalling the sanction of building plans was justified and it cannot be said that the Administrator/Officer-in-Charge, Nagar Panchayat, Daurala exceeded his jurisdiction in cancelling the sanction granted to the petitioners for the building maps.
On the grounds enunciated above, this writ petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Dt/-30.5.2014
Ram Murti
