RAM BABOO GUPTA Vs. AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Shambhu Prasad Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners, Sri Swami Dayal, Advocate for respondent No. 1 and Sri H.P. Yadav, Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2 on admission. The petitioners got sanctioned a, building plan on 13.10.1993 from the Agra Development Authority, respondent No. 1, regarding property No. 6/119 -C, Belanganj, Agra but they made construction contrary to the sanctioned building plan. Vide order dated 30.1.1995, the Executive Engineer of the Agra Development Authority, passed an order demanding a sum of Rs. 1,31,432.50/ - as compounding fee in respect of certain constructions but for the remaining constructions decided that they could not be compounded. The petitioners, thereafter, filed an appeal before the Commissioner who dismissed the same on 7.2.1996 vide Annexure -10 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioners carried the matter in revision to the State Government. The State Government vide order dated 2.4.1997, Annexure -1 to the writ petition, disposed of the revision mentioning that the petitioners had got sanctioned the building plan on 13.10.1993 in respect of the residential building, in which two old shops were already existing and the building was to be constructed for residential purpose except for the existing two shops; and no further shops were to be constructed, but the petitioners Constructed a Katra market by building 11 shops on the ground floor and 11 shops on the first floor. It was further mentioned that breadth of road was only 18.3 meters and there was no space, for parking the vehicles between the road and shops. Consequently, the order passed by the Executive Engineer regarding compounding was set aside and it was mentioned that in view the blatant violation of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, no concession could be granted to the petitioners and, therefore, the whole building should be abolished. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 is not applicable to the building in question in view of Section 52(a) of the Act which provides that nothing in the Act shall apply to the carrying out of works for the maintenance, improvement or other alterations of any building, being works which effect only the interior of the building or which do not materially affect the external appearance of the building. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that alterations means any alterations. We are, however, unable to agree with this submission because the aforesaid provision only saves those buildings in which such alterations have been made, as do not affect the external appearance. The impugned order shows that the petitioners constructed a Katra market by building 11 shops on ground floor and 11 shops on the first floor in violation of the sanctioned plan. This is a case of re -construction and not of interior alterations. As such the aforesaid provision is of no help to the petitioners.

(2.) IN the result, we see no merit in the petition. The petition is, accordingly dismissed in limine.

(3.) THE petitioners allege that they had obtained sanction from the Agra Development Authority under the provisions of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 in respect of their property No. 6/119 -C, Belanganj, Agra. On the allegation that the petitioners have made construction in violation of the sanction granted, the Executive Engineer by his order dated 30.1.1995, Annexure -6 to the writ petition, had imposed a sum of Rs. 1,31,432.52 as compounding fee for that portion of the unauthorised construction which acceding to him was compoundable and had directed demolition of that part of the unauthorised construction which is non -compoundable within a period of 15 days of the said order. Against the said order, the petitioners had preferred an appeal. By an order dated 7.2.96 (Annexure -10), the Commissioner being the appellate authority dismissed the appeal. Against the said appeal, the petitioners preferred a revision being Revision No. 7488/9 -31 -PC before the State Government. By an order dated 2.4.97 (Annexure -1) the said revision was decided, holding, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the unauthorised construction is non -compoundable. Therefore, it had directed the demolition of entire unauthorised building on the finding that the same was in violation of the sanctioned plan and that the construction is contrary to the land use provided in the master plan.