SNEHLATA DWIVEDI Vs. KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions have been pending at the High Court for about eleven years. The issues are common in both the writ petitions and com mon arguments were addressed on them. The aspect relates to the let in the dis cipline of urban planning whether the advantage is taken by those who may have vested rights or others who are incharge of urban planning and arranged to vest these rights in others. For the Court the interpretation of the law has to be seen in this context as a standarised measure so that this applicability is universal and the discharge of obligations by those who are incharge of urban planning have clearcut guidelines on what they have to do.

(2.) THE petitioners were admittedly granted a lease by the local authority known as the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, and the Kanpur Development Authority. THE lease granted to Smt. Snehlata Dwivedi, is by a covenant dated 17 August, 1972, (Annexure-1 to the writ petition ). In the matter of Umanath Tripathi and another, the lease is dated 24th December, 1972. In the first matter the lessor is the Nagar Maha Palika, Kanpur, in other the Kanpur Development Authority. THE Nagar Maha Palika, Kanpur, functions under the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Maha Palika Ad-hiniyam, 1959. THE Kanpur Development Authority functions under the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

(3.) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is two fold. Firstly it is contended that on the one hand the petitioners face an apprehension of being questioned on having violated the law being the U. P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1945, and the danger of being wrested out of possession so as to reduce the area of the plots which were leased to them, secondly, on the other hand the local bodies press for recoveries for the balance of the consideration as lease money, which lease may be of a reduced area. It is further submitted that the action of the local bodies and/or the State department is contradictory because should be prosecution succeed they would have to vacate, in which case there is no occasion for the local bodies to press for recoveries for the balance of the consideration for the leases which had been granted as, in effect, the area of the land leased so far would stand reduced. THE last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners have com mitted no fault when they signed their respective covenants with the local authorities, that is, the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, or the Kanpur Development Authority, and having been assured of the grant of lease they made constructions on the plots and they, in the circumstances, should not be divested of the lease or be dispossessed.