GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. DELHI AUTO AND GENERAL FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED:DELHI AUTO AND GENERAL FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED:MAHA MAYA GENERAL FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are disposed of by this common judgment since the points for decision are common. Writ Petition No. 16382 of 1992, Delhi Auto and General Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U. P. - filed in the Allahabad High Court was allowed by the judgment dated 22-12-1992 and for the same reasons Writ Petition No. 25461 of 1992 - Maha Maya General Finance Co. Ltd. v. State of U. P. - was allowed by the High Court by its judgment dated 21-5-1993. Civil Appeals Nos. 4384 and 4385 of 1993 are separate appeals by special leave by the two respondents in the Writ Petition No. 16382 of 1992 while similar Civil Appeal No. 634 of 1994 is by one of the respondents in Writ Petition No. 25461 of 1992. The material facts may now be briefly stated.

(2.) The Master Plan (Annexure I) was prepared under Section 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'U. P. Act') for development of the area shown therein on 1-6-1986 for the period up to 2001 A.D. In this Master Plan certain lands in Villages Makanpur, Mohiuddinpur Kanauni, Chhajarasi and Lalpur were set apart and shown for use for 'recreational' purposes. This area indicated for recreational use in the Master Plan included certain lands of two private colonisers, namely, Delhi Auto and Genera Finance Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as 'Delhi Auto') and Maha Maya General Finance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as 'Maha Maya'). Maha Maya as well as Delhi Auto applied to the Ghaziabad Development Authority constituted under the U. P. Act, for permission to develop and construct on their lands according to their lay-out plan, in accordance with Section 15 of the U. P. Act. The plan submitted by Maha Maya was granted conditional permission on 22-6-1991/11-7-1991. The application of Delhi Auto being found to be defective was returned for correction and was then presented again after removal of the defects on 20-7-1991. It appears that by a Notification dated 22-4-1991 the Government of Uttar Pradesh had amended the land use of the area indicated originally in the Master Plan for 'recreational' use and converted it to 'residential' use. On 3-7-1991 the National Capital Region Planning Board constituted under the National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985 declined to approve the change of land use of that area from 'recreational' to 'residential' made by the State Government, on the ground that it was not in conformity with the policy decision of the State Government. Accordingly the Government of Uttar Pradesh reviewed its earlier decision and by order dated 24-9-1991 directed the Ghaziabad Development Authority not to sanction the lay-out plan of any person or any coloniser in respect of that area which was originally meant for recreational use. This action was taken to effectuate the purpose of the National Capital Region Plan in the larger public interest for the plan development of that area. The State Government ultimately restored the original position indicated in the Master Plan of use of that area for recreational purposes. On 23-4-1992 Delhi Auto was refused the permission it had sought under Section 15 of the U. P. Act. The same was the effect of the communication to Maha Maya which amounted to revocation of the earlier permission. On facts the only difference between Delhi Auto and Maya Maya is that in the case of Maha Maya a conditional permission had been granted by the Ghaziabad Development Authority prior to restoration of the land use to the original 'recreational' purpose, while in the case of Delhi Auto the pending application was rejected after restoration of the original position.

(3.) As earlier stated, the writ petitions filed in the Allahabad High Court by Delhi Auto and Maha Maya challenging the refusal of permission sought by them under Section 15 of the U. P. Act have been allowed. The reasons given by the High Court for deciding in favour of the two private colonisers are the following: