MEERA SINGH Vs. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE on behalf of respondent No. 1 has been accepted by Sri Dwivedi who has filed a counter -affidavit. Notice on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 has been accepted by the Standing counsel. Learned counsel for the parties agree that this petition be decided at the admission stage. We accordingly decide the writ petition finally under the rules of the Court. The case of the petitioner is that in the city of Varanasi there is a colony known as 'Mohini Kunj Colony'. The coloniser of this colony submitted a lay -out plan for approval to the Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi. The coloniser deposited money towards the external development charges and the lay -out plan was approved. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased one of the plots from the aforesaid coloniser and applied to Varanasi Development Authority for according sanction to the building plan. It is said that the Vice Chairman of the Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi accorded sanction to the said map by an order dated 15 -3 -1991. Subsequently, the said sanction was revoked by the Nagar Abhiyanta by an order dated 27 -3 -1991 on the ground that the Coloniser from whom the petitioner purchased the plot of land has not complied with certain formalities. This order has been challenged by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on two grounds; Firstly that the sanction of the building plan of the petitioner cannot be revoked and secondly, in any case no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before revoking the order of sanction of the building plan.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and in our opinion both the grounds raised by the petitioner are well substantiated under law. The Governor of Uttar Pradesh has framed regulations in exercise of powers conferred by Section 19 of U.P. Regulation of Building Operation Act 1958. By virtue of Sub -section 1(c) of Section 59 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act 1973, the said regulation, in so far it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, shall continue in force until altered, repealed or amended by any competent authority under this Act. It has not been stated that the said regulation has been repealed or amended under the Act of 1973 so far as it relates to the Varanasi Development Authority. The proviso of Regulation 5 provides that in cases where coloniser has not executed the agreement, permission to erect the building within the colony may be granted to individual owners of the plots on the condition that they deposit with the controlling authority such amount as may be specified by the controlling authority to cover the proportionate cost of internal development of the land within the colony and proportionate cost of external development in connection therewith. According to, this provision even if the coloniser has not executed the agreement or other formalities or developed the area, the permission to erect building within the colony can be granted to individual owner of the plot on the deposit of proportionate cost of internal and external development of land within the colony. This permission cannot be withheld on the ground that the coloniser has not entered into an agreement or has not complied with certain formalities provided the individual owner of plot deposits the proportionate cost of external and internal development of the colony. We are, therefore, of opinion that the reason for cancellation of building plan of the petitioner on the ground that the coloniser has not complied with certain formalities of agreement is not sustainable in law. Moreover, once the lay out -plan has been sanctioned, the permission to erect building neither can be withheld nor, if sanction accorded, can be revoked unless such sanction is obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.

(3.) IN view of this we set aside the impugned order dated 7 -3 -91. We may make it clear that in case the petitioner is found to have obtained sanction by practising fraud or mis -representation, it will be open to the Development Authority to proceed against the petitioner only after giving an opportunity of hearing to her. In the result the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.