Satish Chandra Gupta And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2019 Latest Caselaw 6585 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19136 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Gupta And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Rajvanshi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharmendra Pratap Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh for the fourth respondent and the learned Standing Counsel.

Bearing in mind the nature of order which this Court proposes to pass, notice need not issue to the fifth respondent.

This petition impugns an order passed by the Commissioner Kanpur Mandal in proceedings taken under Section 15A of the Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of the Building Operations) Act, 1958. It appears that the application of the respondents for grant of permission to construct was refused by the Controlling Authority. The Controlling Authority took the position that the name of petitioners was recorded in the relevant records and that consequently the respondents were not entitled for grant of permission. He further placed reliance upon a questionnaire issued by the concerned Court in terms of which it was asserted by the petitioners that an injunction granted on 31 March 1971 in a suit pending inter partes was still effective. The Commissioner however, has set aside the order of the Controlling Authority noting that the suit in which injunction was claimed to operate had been dismissed for default on 28 September 2007. The order of dismissal is stated to have been recalled on 21 January 2009 and the suit restored to its original number. In the interregnum, however and more particularly on 14 January 2008 the respondents here appear to have purchased the property in question by way of a registered sale deed. The Commissioner in that backdrop has come to conclude that it was unclear whether the order of 31 March 1971 was still effective.

In any case the Court notes that a categorical finding has been recorded that it was the respondents who have been inducted in possession and whose application for recordal of name in the relevant record was still pending. The Court notes that the authorities charged with the obligation of considering applications for permission to construct are really not concerned nor obliged to deal with issues of title. If it be the case of the petitioners that they are in possession and that an order of status quo still exists, it is open to them to seek appropriate relief including that of injunction in the suit which is pending. On an overall conspectus of the aforesaid facts, the Court finds no ground meriting interference with the view taken by the Revisional Authority.

The petition fails and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 1.8.2019

faraz