M/S HIND PLYWOOD INDUSTRY THRU MANAGING PARTNER AND ANOTHER Vs. LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THRU VICE CHAIRMAN LKO. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge raised in this writ petition is to a notice served upon the petitioner under the provisions of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 by the Lucknow Development Authority calling upon the petitioner to remove its effects as the same amounted to an encroachment over Plot No.3/2 & 3/3, Industrial Area, Aish Bagh, Lucknow. It is stated in the notice that said land was owned by the erstwhile Lucknow Improvement Trust, which now stands devolved upon the Development Authority in terms of Sec. 59 (6) (c) of the 1973 Act. Consequently according to respondent-Lucknow Development Authority this amounts to an encroachment and this unauthorized possession of the petitioner should, therefore, be removed forthwith with the aid of police. Aggrieved this petition has been filed.

(2.) A mention was made earlier today to take up this case out of turn and we have accordingly summoned the records. We have also heard Sri N. C. Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Lucknow Development Authority as well as the learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.3 to 9.

(3.) Sri A. K. Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the notice completely ignores the correct status of the land as existing today over which the petitioner is in possession since times immemorial. He submits that there is ample evidence on record to demonstrate the lawful possession of the petitioner including the orders passed by the Civil Court and thus, the interest of petitioner is protected by judicial intervention. He has further invited the attention of the Court towards the order dated 17th Oct. 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division in an Execution Case on an application under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code. The contention is that the claim of the petitioner being protected, the respondent-Lucknow Development Authority does not have any power to act in violation of the said order passed by the Civil Court. It is further submitted that the respondent no.10 has got the lease deed executed and renewed in his favour, but the same cannot override the orders of the Court where the respondent no.10 is a defendant. It is further submitted that the Lucknow Development Authority ought not have intervened in the matter at the instance of respondent no.10 & 11, yet the Lucknow Development Authority appears to have favoured respondent no.10 by issuing a notice of encroachment on the petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that this exercise of power by the Lucknow Development Authority is otherwise malafide and is not in accordance with law.