BAREILLY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. METHODIST CHURCH OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment of the High court does not call for any interference.

(2.) Purporting to act under S. 28 (1 of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 , the Barely Development Authority served a notice dated 17/06/1987 directing stay of further construction of the proposed commercial complex as per sanctionedplan by the Methodist Church of India, respondent 1, over an area of 7 acres at 95, Civil Lines, Barely forming part of the mission compound where the mission hospital as well as a medical college are located. Thereafter, the Development Authority served another notice dated 19/06/1987 purporting to act under S. 27 (1 requiring respondent 1 to show cause why the said construction being unauthorised should not be demolished on the ground that there was a breach of condition No. 6 of the sanctioned plan, namely, failure to complete the work of construction within a period of three years w. e. f. 11/11/1983, the date of order of the sanctioned plan. On 24/01/1984, the Development Authority passed a contrary order rejecting the building plan on certain grounds. As there were two conflicting orders, respondent 1 took up the matter with the State government and the government on 8/04/1985 remitted the matter to the Development Authority for consideration afresh according to law. Pursuant to the advice tendered by the government, the Development Authority reconsidered the entire matter and took a fresh decision on 30/05/1985 to the effect that approval and permission accorded on 11/11/1983 would stand restored and accordingly the sub-sequent order dated 24/01/1984 rescinding sanction be treated as ineffective. The decision so arrived at was communicated by the Development Authority not only to the government but 'also to respondent 1, in consequence whereof respondent 1 resumed the work of construction. Subsequently, the Development Authority presumably setting on the suspicion that the sanction of the building plan had been obtained by the builders fraudulently, directed as investigation by the central Investigation Department but the result of the investigation is not known. In the meanwhile, the Development Authority proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 19/07/1987 directing the demolition of the structure on the ground that the construction had not been completed within the prescribed period and that it was in contravention of the master plan.

(3.) By its reasoned judgment, the High court has rightly quashed the impugned notices as well as the order of demolition on the ground that there was no breach of condition No. 6 of the order granting sanction. It rightly held that in computation of the period of three years for completion of the proposed building, the period from 24/01/198 4/05/1985 i. e. the period during which the work of construction had been stopped, had to be excluded.