Allahabad High Court
Kalka Education Society vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 16 July, 2021
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Sadhna Rani (Thakur)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11278 of 2021
Petitioner :- Kalka Education Society
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nipun Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupeshwar Dayal,Pankaj Srivastava
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 22.1.2021 passed by the Chairman, Meerut Development Authority whereby the representation moved by the petitioner seeking for revival of the sanction plan no.1652 of 2004 had been rejected.
The order impugned categorically records that the petitioner had encroached upon the Banjar land of an area of 0.4075 hectare which was in the management of the Nagar Nigam, Meerut and had raised construction in contravention of the sanctioned plan.
A perusal of the order impugned further indicates that on the compounding map submitted by the petitioner on 12.2.2020, certain objections were taken by the respondent-Development Authority which are to be noted as under:
"????? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? 12.02.2020 ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?????? 1652/4 ?? ???? ???????? ????? ??? ?????? ? ??? ??????? ???? ???????? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ?????????? ??? ?????????? ????????? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???
1- ???????? ???? ??? ??? ????????? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??-????? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???
2- ????????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ???
3- ?????? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ???
4- ??? ????, ??? ?????????? , ???????? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ???????? ???????? ???? ?????
5- ??? ???????? ?? ?????/?????????? ?? ????????? ???? ???
6- ?????????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ??? "
The report of the Revenue Authority regarding encroachment on the Banjar land has also been taken note of in the order impugned.
Having noted the fact that the petitioner had raised construction in deviation of sanctioned plan over the Banjar land which was in the management of the Nagar Nigam, Meerut, prayer for revival of the sanctioned plan has been rejected, by the respondent-Authority.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed under Section 122B of U.P. Z.A and L.R Act on the allegations of encroachment of the Banjar land had been challenged in Writ C no.17189 of 2018 wherein interim order dated 16.10.2018 had been passed whereby the orders of eviction had been stayed.
After initiation of the said petition, the petitioner moved an application for sanction of the compounding plan with the contention that the disputed area claimed by the Nagar Nigam, Meerut shall be excluded from the sanctioned lay out plan no.1652 of 2004. In order to press the said prayer, a Writ Petition no. 19416 of 2020 had been filed by the petitioner which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 7.12.2020 with the observation that the representation moved by the petitioner for exclusion of the disputed area shall be given due consideration.
Sri Pankaj Srivastava learned counsel for the respondent no.3 pointed out that in writ petition no.17189 of 2018, Nagar Nigam, Meerut has not been impleaded, though it had contested the proceedings under the U.P.Z.A.L.R Act drawn against the petitioner.
This assertion is proved from a perusal of the record of the writ petition no.17189 of 2018 placed before us.
Having noticed the facts recorded in the order impugned that the petitioner had raised construction wherein certain deviations had been made from the original sanctioned plan no.1652 of 2004 and on presentation of the compounding plan with the letter dated 12.2.2020, the objections were raised by the Meerut Development Authority regarding the land use of the plot, we do not find any error in the order impugned. As regards the prayer of the petitioner to exclude the disputed plot from the compounding plan or sanction plan, submitted by it, in our opinion, it is not possible for the Development Authority to do the same.
The reason being that the constructions had already been raised by the petitioner on the spot and for finding out the extent of the encroachment over Banjar land, measurement of the area covered by construction raised by the petitioner has to be made.
The dispute, therefore, becomes a disputed question of fact for which relief can be granted only after evidence are led by the parties. It is open for the petitioner to file a civil suit wherein Meerut Development Authority and Nagar Nigam, Meerut would be necessary parties.
For the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the writ petition, the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.7.2021
Harshita
