Remanded

Sweeti v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2020WRIC/10623/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court set aside the sealing of the petitioner's premises and directed the Development Authority to examine the claim of exemption from prior permission based on a Government Order for plots under 100 meters, requiring a fresh decision within two months.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's claim of exemption from prior permission under Government Order dated 4.1.2008 be examined by the Respondent No. 2, resulting in a fresh decision within two months; impugned orders se

Sweeti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10623 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Sweeti Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jagdish Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. Considering the nature of orders proposed to be passed, notices need not be issued to the respondent nos. 2 & 3 and the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.

¶6

Petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the Secretary, Basti Development Authority, Basti dated 28.8.2019 against which an appeal filed before the Commissioner has also been rejected on 13.2.2020, which order is also assailed in this petition. The authority has invoked its power under Section 28A (1) of the 'Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1973') to seal the premises of petitioner on the ground she is raising construction without obtaining any permission from the development authority under Section 15 of the Act of 1973.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is raising construction only upon 43 Sq. meter of land. It is urged that when authority issued notices to petitioner she submitted a reply clearly stating therein that by virtue of Government Order dated 4.1.2008 issued by the State Government, requirement of obtaining prior sanction upon building plot which is below 100 meters has been done away with. As petitioner's area is below 100 meters, there is no requirement of obtaining prior sanction. It is submitted that petitioner's reply in that regard has not been considered by the development authority and petitioner's construction has been sealed.

¶8

Learned standing counsel states that the development authority shall examine petitioner's objection, on merits, and shall pass necessary orders, in this regard, in accordance with law.

¶9

Whether or not petitioner requires the building plan to be sanctioned on account of smallness of the building plot, is a factual issue which is required to be examined by the development authority, at the first instance. There does not appear to be any consideration of petitioner's case, so far.

¶10

Attention of the Court has been invited to a Government Order dated 4.1.2008, which is also relied upon by the petitioner while submitting his reply. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction upon respondent no. 2 to examine petitioner's claim of exemption from the requirement of obtaining prior permission before raising the construction in terms of the Government Order dated 4.1.2008, as well as subsequent Government Orders which may have been issued in that regard, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. The authorities shall take a fresh decision in the proceedings under Section 28-A of the Act of 1973, on the basis of determination so made on petitioner's objection filed in proceedings under Section 27 of the Act of 1973. The orders impugned in the writ petition dated 28.8.2019 and 13.2.2020 shall abide by the fresh orders to be passed by the development authority.

¶11

Subject to the directions aforesaid, the writ petition is consigned to record.

¶12

The concerned Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of computerized copy of this order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall act accordingly without waiting for submission of the certified copy of this order.

¶13

Order Date :- 7.7.2020 n.u.

Sweeti v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sweeti v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rama Shanker @ Ram Shanker Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sudhir Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravendra Kumar and 35 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Brijesh Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

C/M St. Marks Society and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Kusuma Devi Vs State of U P and 2 Others