Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard Shri Roshan Kumar Singh for the petitioners and Shri Amit Manohar for the respondents.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated 21.08.2020 issued by respondent no. 3, by which the petitioners have been asked to stop commercial use of Plot No. C - 98, Lihia Nagar, Ghaziabad within a period of one week, failing which action under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973 would be undertaken against them.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Plot No. C - 98, Lihia Nagar, Ghaziabad was allotted to the petitioners for residential use. The petitioners applied for compounding under the provisions of "Self Voluntaried Amended Compounding Rules, 1998" and deposited requisite fees to the tune of Rs. 1,27,408/-, but the same was illegally rejected without giving any opportunity to the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners preferred an Original Suit No. 692 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent - Authority. In the suit, petitioners also filed an ad interim injunction application, which was dismissed on 15.01.2005. Challenging the dismissal order, petitioners preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2005 before the District Judge, Ghaziabad. In the meantime, on 06.12.2014, suit of the petitioners was dismissed on the ground of non-appearance of the parties. It is further submitted that taking advantage of dismissal of the suit, the respondent - Authority has issued the impugned notice dated 21.08.2020. It is finally submitted that though the application for conversion of the plot in question from residential to commercial is pending, respondent - Authority has illegally issued the impugned notice.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Authority submits that the petitioners have not brought on record any material to show that their application for conversion of the plot in question from residential to commercial is pending. He further submits that the petitioners may submit their reply pursuant to the impugned notice and the same may be considered by the respondent - Authority, in accordance with law, but at this stage, the present writ petition is not maintainable.
The Court has perused the record.
On perusal of the impugned notice dated 21.08.2020, it would reveal that the plot in question has been allotted to the petitioners for residential use only, but the same is being used by them for commercial purposes, i.e., liquor business, and therefore, by the impugned notice, the petitioners have only been asked to stop commercial use of plot in question, failing which action under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973 would be undertaken against them. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable against a show cause notice and is liable to be dismissed.
The learned counsel for the petitioners finally submits that since the petitioners have deposited the money for compounding, the deposited amount may be refunded as the application of the petitioners has been rejected by the respondent - Authority.
Shri Amit Manohar, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that in case the petitioners move an appropriate application for refund of the amount, the same would be considered in accordance with law.
This Court has no reason to disbelieve the statement made by Shri Manohar.
This writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event the petitioners approach the Competent Authority for refund of the compounding fee, same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order.
Order Date :- 25.1.2021 Amit Mishra