NARENDRA PRASAD AGARWAL Vs. MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority (hereinafter will be called as 'the MDDA'), it transpires that the petitioner was the owner -in -possession of the land, in question, where at present, he runs a Wedding Point. Though the Map was sanctioned by the District Magistrate, Dehradun sometime in 1980, however, the sanction, so accorded, does not appear to have any date appending to his illegible signatures but the Map was sanctioned in the year 1980, as it also transpires from the seal and signature of Executive Engineer of P.W.D. as well as of the Assistant Engineer. This Map was initially for the purpose to start a unit under the name and style of 'M/s. Doon Fertilizers and Minerals, Dehradun' but on account of certain constraints imposed by the Government, with the passage of time, the owner of the same with certain minor changes, converted it to the Wedding Point as aforementioned. He also got constructed a house in the same premises, which was later on objected to by the MDDA, where for the compounding application was forwarded by the petitioner stating therein that if the MDDA is not agreed then the owner was prepared to demolish the same even. Perhaps, the MDDA remained silent for a considerable time, so nothing could happen and the petitioner Narendra Prasad Aggarwal went on in making the bookings for different marriages which are going to be solemnized at present as well as in near future. Several receipts have been filed by the petitioner adverting the booking of solemnization of such marriages. In these circumstances, the MDDA woke up and issued the impugned notice dated 20.9.2014 under an illegible signature of the Secretary, divulging its intention to seal the Wedding Point on 30.9.2014 and the petitioner has also been asked to remain present at the spot.

(2.) LEARNED standing counsel for the MDDA has heavily relied upon a judgment of Division Bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of 'Suraksha Rani Chopra v. State of U.P.' 2005(4) AWC 3372, wherein it was held that if after the purchase, petitioner has raised the construction to a certain extent in addition to and in contravention of the Plan sanctioned by the Development Authority, then his application for change of use should not be compounded because the construction, so raised by the petitioner, was in contravention of the sanctioned plan. In that case, the application moved by the petitioner was not dealt with and the Authority had issued the impugned notice for demolition of the construction raised in contravention of the sanctioned Plan, hence in such circumstances, the petition, so filed by the owner of the property, was dismissed.

(3.) TRUE , there cannot be any room for doubt that the Court should always consider to protect the larger public interest against the limited individual private interests, but instantly, this Court would not like to go into deep with the circumstances, which have been before the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the case of Dipak Kumar Mukherjee (Supra) and the same will be dealt with by this Court while hearing both the parties on full merits.