R K MITTAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.

(2.) The ambit and scope of power of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (for short, the Development Authority) to permit users, other than residential, in the sectors specifically earmarked for residential use in the Master Plan of the New Okhla Industrial Development Area (for short, the Development Area) is the basic question that falls for consideration of this Court in this bunch of appeals. These appeals demonstrate some of the instances of widespread violation of statutory provisions and somewhat arbitrary exercise of power by the Development Authority. Lack of adoption of uniform application of law has resulted in large number of cases of violation of law all over the State of Uttar Pradesh going unnoticed. The time has come for the Development Authorities to change their style of functioning and act vigilantly and uniformly, that too, strictly in accordance with law, keeping in view the larger public interest. Introductory Facts

(3.) This judgment shall dispose of the above referred four civil appeals and the applications for intervention therein. Out of the four appeals, in Civil Appeal No. 6962 of 2005 and Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 24029 of 2005, the lease deed in favour of the parties had been cancelled by the Development Authority while in other two appeals, Civil Appeal No. 6963 of 2005 and Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 9150 of 2007, after giving notice, it had passed an order requiring the parties concerned to stop the misuse within the stipulated time, failing which appropriate action in accordance with law, including cancellation of the lease deed, would be taken. The facts and circumstances in all the appeals and even the intervention applications are somewhat similar. In any case, the common question of law arising in all the appeals and applications is whether the residential premises can be, wholly or partly, used by the original allottee or even its transferee, for any purpose other than residential We do not consider it necessary to refer to the facts of each case in greater detail, except the facts of the lead case, i.e., Civil Appeal No. 6962 of 2005, R.K. Mittal v. State of U.P. However, wherever reference to certain additional facts is called for, we would notice the same in the other cases as well.