Disposed

Sanjay Singh and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024WRIC/17732/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging the Master Plan for Mathura-Vrindayan Development Area, holding that since the plan was approved and gazettal notifications issued, the challenge is not maintainable. The court directed grievance to be addressed under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of.

Sanjay Singh and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and… — Municipal and Town Planning | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:120967-DB

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17732 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sanjay Singh And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhanu Pratap Singh,Saurabh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharmendra Singh Chauhan

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri D.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 to 6.

¶6

Sanjay Singh along with seven others have approached this Court inter alia with the following reliefs:-

¶7

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Master Plan dated 31.01.2024 issued by respondent no.1 in pursuance of Government Order dated 48104/2024-8-3099/579/2023 introduced and covering the Mathura-Vrindavan Development Area.

¶8

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities not to interfere in peaceful possession of the lands, owned by the petitioners, without adopting due process of law."

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondent-Development Authority raised an objection that the relief as has been prayer for, is totally misconceived. He placed reliance on Chapter III of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (in short, 'Act, 1973'), which provides a detailed procedure for preparation of Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan. Section 8 of the Act, 1973 provides, before proceeding the authority shall prepare Master Plan for the area, which has to be developed. While preparing the Master Plan, the authority has to take adequate measures for ensuring proper development of the area. Accordingly, Section 9 of the Act, 1973 provides for Zonal Development Plans wherein the detailed procedure is provided and subsequently, under Section 10 of the Act, 1973, after preparation of the plan, the same has to be submitted to the State Government for approval. He further placed reliance on Section 11 of the Act, 1973, which deals with the procedure to be followed in preparation and approval of the plan and Section 12 of the Act, 1973 which provides the date of commencement of the plan. In this backdrop, he submits that the detailed procedure is provided in the Act, 1973 to prepare Zonal and Master Plan, and for even some changes in the Zonal/Master Plan, the adequate publication has to be made and objections are also invited. Later on, the said objections have to be considered by the authority and only thereafter, the plan is prepared and thereafter, it has to be sent to the State Government for approval. Once the plan is approved, there is little scope to question the validity of the Master/Zonal

¶10

Plan. More so, in the present matter the notification has already been made by the State Government and Master Plan has already come into existence. He submits that the petitioners have not brought any material to substantiate their claim that at the time of preparation of Master Plan they had filed any objection against the proposed activity, which was shown in the Master Plan qua the area in dispute. In absence of any objection, at this belated stage challenge to the Master Plan is unacceptable and liable to the dismissed.

¶11

Considered the aforementioned submission advanced by learned counsel for contesting respondent. It is not in dispute that the Master Plan prepared by the authority qua the area in dispute has been approved by the State Government and gazette notification has also been made. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are not inclined to accept any challenge to the Master Plan. In case, the petitioners have any grievances, they may press their relief under the Act, 1973 before the competent authority.

¶12

With the aforesaid leave, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 29.7.2024 Manish Himwan

¶14

Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay Singh and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Singh and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Lb Electronics Ltd. vs State of Up and 2 Others

Dayaram and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

M/S Gautam Udyog vs State of Up and 2 Others

Parvin Khan vs State of Up and 3 Others

Committee of Management Sri Surya Narayan Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya vs Avneesh Kumar Rai and 2 Others

Chandi Prasad vs State of U.P. and 3 Others