BRIJMOHAN TANWAR Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A grievance is raised in the present petition that constructions are being allowed by the development authority contrary to the sanction plan on account of which petitioner's adjoining constructions are getting damaged. Taking note of such contention, we passed following orders on 26/2/2024:-

(2.) Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel representing development authority states that though constructions are being raised by the private respondents over and above the area for which map has been sanctioned but such constructions are within the compoundable limits. Written instructions are produced as per which the private respondent has been given an opportunity to apply for compounding.

(3.) Urban areas are required to be developed in accordance with the plan. It is with this object that U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 has been enacted. The authorities have also framed building bye-laws which permits constructions on specified area only after getting the plan approved. In the present case also the private respondent has in fact got a map approved. In case constructions are raised as per it, there can hardly be any objection. In this case also the private respondent has secured sanction of a residential construction and in the event such constructions are undertaken, there can be no objection. However, it transpires that constructions are being raised by the private respondent in excess of construction allowed as per the approved plan. The authority instead of allowing constructions to be raised strictly as per the approved plan is permitting the private respondent to raise additional constructions on the ground that such additional constructions are compoundable.