SURAKSHA RANI CHOPRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the show cause notice dated 27 -4 -2005 (Annex. 21); earlier similar notice dated 18 -10 -2003 (Annex. 20); and further FOR direction to decide the applications dated 31 -3 -2000 and 1 -5 - 2000 (Annex. 3 and 4) of the petitioners, for compounding the construction raised in contravention of the Sanction Plan and for permitting change of user of the property in dispute.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner had puchased Property No. II/B -1, Nehru Nagar, District Ghaziabad, measuring 572.40 sq. mtrs. vide Registered Sale Deed dated 7 -10 -1983. Petitioners applied for sanction of the Plan for construction over the said land, it was sanctioned by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (hereinafter called the Authority) respondent No. 3 vide order dated 11 -11 -1983 for residential purpose. Petitioners raised constructions to a certain extent in addition to and in contravention of the Plan sanctioned by the Authority. The petitioners thereafter filed applications for change of user, i.e. from residential to commercial, and further to compound the construction raised by them in contravention of the Sanctioned Plan. The said applications were not dealt with and the Authority has issued impugned notices for demolition of the construction raised in contravention of the Sanctioned Plan. Hence this petition.

(3.) ON the contrary, Shri C.K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh and Shri A.K. Misra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have vehemently submitted that compounding is not permissible in contravention of the Master Plan. The State of Uttar Pradesh approved Bye -laws, framed by the Authority, however, the said bye -laws also do not permit the relief sought herein. Section 16 of the Act prohibits any such action and no person can be permitted to raise construction in contravention of the sanctioned Plan Compounding of an offence is meant only for minor deviations and cannot be used for changing the nature of the property of changing its use. Change of user of the property is not permissible in contravention of the Master Plan. As the Authority has to take into consideration a large number of aspects, including environment, the comfort of life of other residents, this kind of compounding would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution guaranteed to all the residents of that area. Article 14 of the Constitution envisages only a positive and not a negative equality and if certain earlier order has been passed by the Authority, it cannot come to the rescue of the petitioners. The petition is liable to be dismissed.