PADMESHWARI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice on behalf of respondent No 1 has been accepted by learned State Counsel and on behalf of respondent no. 2 notice has been accepted by Sri D. K. Upadhyay, Advocate. Connect and list with Writ Petition No. 9127 (MB) of 2008 and other connected matters. In Writ Petition No. 9127 (MB) of 2008 we have passed detailed orders on 14th October 2008 and 18th October 2008 seeking certain informations from the respondents and then on 21st October, 2008 an interim order has been passed restraining the respondents from disturbing petitioners' possession with a further direction that their activity would not be interfered with, but at the same time, the petitioners have been restrained from raising constructions. This interim order is continuing. The question raised in this writ petition as well as in the connected writ petitions is regarding laying out of parking lot adjacent to Ramabai Sthal. Sri D. K. Upadhya, learned Chief Standing Counsel says that the matter be taken up on Wednesday i. e. 17th December 2008 by which date he would seek complete instructions and, if possible, shall also file counter affidavit clarifying the scheme. Not to repeat, but to reiterate, this Court has taken notice of the arguments of the petitioners that for the reasons given in orders dated 14th October 2008, 8. 10. 2008 and 21. 10. 2008 whether it is permissible under law to lay out a parking lot in a populated residential area, where a large number of residential, educational and other buildings are existing and also of the fact that the Lucknow Development Authority is already having considerable additional land adjacent to Ramabail Sthal and across the road covering a very large area, over which the parking lot can be laid down and in case the Lucknow Development Authority feels that it requires more space for the parking lot, underground- multilayer parking lot may be constructed. The question involved in this petition is also the same i. e. , whether apart from the plea that there is no necessity and requirement of having a parking lot of such a huge dimension covering an area of more than 150 acres or so, for the political rallies nor can it be said to be a public purpose nor planned development that too which are to be held only twice or thrice in a year, in the Rama Bai Sthal, the whole inhabited area having a large number of residential buildings, houses, commercial establishments, educational institutions, clinics and other establishments, need be and can be demolished only for laying down a parking lot in the given facts and circumstances, more so when in the master-plan, the area is shown as residential. The matter is under consideration of the Court and Sri D. K. Upadhyay, learned Chief Standing Counsel says that he has no instructions whether any demolition is going to be affected immediately but the petitioners apprehend that dispossession and demolition can be effected any moment, even in the night, which is the normal modus operandi of the Lucknow Development Authority. Sri Asif Hasan Advocate, who appears in the connected writ petition, in which the acquisition of a Degree College is under challenge, brings to the notice of the Court the news item published in the local daily of today i. e. 12. 12. 2008, " The Times of India," under the caption "now, lose your home for Maya's dream", wherein it has been stated that while confirming the plan, by Lucknow Development Authority for the aforesaid parking lot, Lucknow Development Authority Vice-Chairman told Times of India that it's the prerogative of the district administration how they would handle it, and the District Magistrate said that a notification under Section 4 (17) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) has already been issued to the residents etc. , the same is being placed on record, and on our attention being drawn to demolition effected by the Lucknow Development Authority with respect to more than one and half dozen houses or so in the vicinity of the area where the State Government had invited objections under Section 5-A, even before the date of expiry of filing the objections, and without issuing declaration under Section 6 and notices under Section 9 of the Act, which matter is under consideration in Writ Petition No. 9219 (MB) of 2008 In re:- Smt. Husnabano Vs. Lucknow Development Authority and others, we cannot presume the fear of the residents of the area thoroughly baseless or mere apprehension. We have already passed orders in the connected writ petitions restraining the dispossession of the petitioners of those writ petitions, and permitting them to carry on their activities, but considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the plan of the Lucknow Development Authority to lay out the parking lot for which the petitioners apprehend immediate demolition in view of the aforesaid news item, we therefore, extend the same benefit of the aforesaid interim orders to the petitioner of the present writ petition and further direct that till Wednesday i. e. 16th December 2008 no demolition of any building shall be effected irrespective of the fact that the persons who are in its occupation or to whom the buildings belong, have approached this Court or not for whatever reasons till date. List on 17th December 2008. The office while issuing certified copy of this order shall also issue the copy of the orders passed in Writ Petition No. 9127 (MB) of 2008 on 14. 10. 2008, 18. 10. 2008 and 21. 10. 2008. This order shall be communicated by Sri D. K. Upadhya, learned counsel to all concerned namely; the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority and other District authorities pending availability of a certified copy of this order. .