This writ petition seeking quashing of impugned order, approval of layout map, and non-interference in construction was dismissed as Liable to the filing of Alternative Remedy like appeal under Section 15(5) of U.P. Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38720 of 2019
Petitioner :- Neeru Agarwal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
This writ petition has been filed, interalia, for the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the impugned order Letter No. 1061/R.D.A/2019-20 dated 17.10.2019 passed by the respondent no. 4 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to approve the "Shaman Manchitra/layout map submitted by the petitioners on 13.02.2018 in accordance with law.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the constructed portion of petitioners over the disputed land i.e. Gata No. 81/25 area 0.0484 Hectare situated at village Benajeerpura-Ghatampur, Tehsil Sadar, District Rampur, Uttar Pradesh."
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Chairman, Rampur Development Authority, District Rampur as respondent no. 5 in the writ petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Anand Prakash Paul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the record.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the
respondents has stated that the petitioners have got an alternative remedy to file an appeal under Section 15(5) of the U.P. Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973 to ventilate their grievance.
In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition for reasons that there is availability of statutory remedy.
In case, the petitioners file an appeal before the appropriate authority within 10 days from today, their appeal may be considered and decided by the said authority within 6 weeks by a speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.1.2020 Arun
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be entertained given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.
Whether Alternative Remedy Clause bars the jurisdiction of the High Court in writ jurisdiction.
Whether an appeal under Section 15(5) of U.P. Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973 vexes the writ petition.
Neeru Agarwal
State Of U.P.
Rampur Development Authority
Shashi Kant Gupta
Piyush Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
