KAMAL MIMANI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petitioner questions the legality and validity of the order passed by Allahabad Development Authority, relating to demolition of the alleged unauthorized constructions raised by the petitioner, over a Plot of land measuring 152.65 Sq. Metres situate within the premises of Bungalow No. 17, Tagore Town, Allahabad, and for a direction commanding the Development Authority to supply a copy of the letter dated 4.3.2003 with a further permission to the petitioner to submit his reply in order to meet the objections raised by the Development Authority on the application of the petitioner regarding compounding. A further prayer for issuing any other suitable writ or order has also been made in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) THE facts shorn of details are that the petitioner purchased the aforesaid plot from the erstwhile owners through a sale deed dated 31.8.2000. After having purchased the land, the petitioner submitted a Map for being sanctioned by the Allahabad Development Authority under the provisions of THE U.P. Urban Planning Development Act, 1976 and the Regulations framed there under. Permission is required as per Section 14 of the aforesaid Act. According to the petitioner, the constructions were raised when on 31.7.2002, a notice was issued to the Petitioner calling upon him to explain about the alleged unauthorized constructions. THE said Notice was dispatched by the Junior Engineer of the Development Authority at Allahabad in which there was an offer made that the petitioner may apply for compounding of the unauthorized construction in view of the scheme as floated under the orders of the State Government namely "Saral Shaman Yojna". A copy of the said scheme together with its Annexures has been placed before the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the stand taken in the counter affidavit that the Petitioner was served with a Notice on 4.3.2003 to remove the defects as pointed out therein for the purposes of compounding is wrong inasmuch as the said Notice was allegedly served on one Abdul Washed and not on the petitioner and that there is no reference about the service of the said Notice on the petitioner either in the order of the Development Authority, the order of the Commissioner or of the State Government.