JIMI VERMA Vs. GAUTAM VERMA @ GAUTAM KUMAR VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ petitions have been heard at length. The first two writ petitions being CWJC No 12831 of 2008 and CWJC No 17775 of 2008 are by the same petitioner challenging the actions of the respondents in ordering it to stop construction and demolish that whatever has been made on the ground that it is now in conflict with the master plan of Bodh Gaya. The case of the petitioner, in these two writ petitions, is firstly that they, having valid building sanction which was granted much prior to the publication of the draft master plan, which building sanction was also duly renewed, their building sanction or construction in accordance with the said sanction, cannot become invalid or illegal on subsequent publication of a master plan on the ground that it was now in conflict with the draft master plan or the master plan. Alternatively, their submission is that the draft master plan/master plan is itself invalid and that being so, sanction to and construction by the petitioner cannot be held to be invalid. In the third writ petition, that is CWJC No 14287 of 2007, petitioners assert that they had applied for sanction of building plan which was not refused. It is a case of deemed sanction and, thus, their construction could not be held to be illegal and no order declaring it to be illegal or for its demolition could be passed without drawing up a proper proceedings, issuing them notice, hearing them in this regard.

(2.) IT may note that the first two writ petitions were earlier heard by this Court and were allowed by judgment and order dated 08.12.2009. IT appears that the third writ petition was not decided in any manner. In respect to the first two writ petitions, this Court, inter alia, held that they had applied for and were undisputedly duly granted sanction by the Gaya Regional Development Authority (GRDA) for their building long before even the draft master plan for Bodh Gaya was published calling for objections. Thus, it was a pre-existing sanction which could not be invalidated by subsequent master plan. They had been granted due renewal of their sanction by the GRDA as well. Thus, notwithstanding the subsequent publication of the draft master plan and its finalization, their sanction could not be invalidated nor their construction deemed to be illegal even though it was now in conflict of the subsequent master plan. In such a situation, this Court, on the earlier occasion, did not consider it prudent to go into the question of validity or otherwise of the mater plan of Bodh Gaya.

(3.) IN my view, the decision of this Court in relation to the first two writ petitions would itself decide the fate of the third writ petition. As such, the first two writ petitions are being considered in detail at the first instance.