Court No. - 46
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6204 of 2019 Petitioner :- M/S Al Faheem Meetex Private Ltd.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Dwivedi, Mr. Anurag Khanna (Senior Advocate), Prashant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Jagannath Maurya Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Navin Ninha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Jagannath Maurya, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The petitioner is a registered company and has established buffalo slaughter house alongwith rendering/processing plant over Khasra nos.25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 63, 66 & 67, situated at Village Allipur Dhikauli, Hapur Road, Pargana,Tehsil & District Meerut.
It appears that on 23.05.2017, the respondent no.4 Meerut Development Authority, Meerut passed an order for sealing of factory premises of the petitioner on the ground of unauthorized construction. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation/objection on 24.05.2017 against the order of sealing of factory premises. When the authorities did not decide the representation/objection of the petitioner, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.27060 of 2017 praying for early disposal of representation/objection of the petitioner. This Court directed the respondent no.5 Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut to decide the objection of the petitioner expeditiously, and thereupon the respondent no.4 by order dated 25.10.2017 disposed of the representation/objection of the petitioner. Relevant portion of the order of Commissioner is extracted herein-below:-
"... उभय पकक्षों दद्वारद्वा प्रस्ततुत सद्वाक्ष्यक्षों एववं तरर वं पर ववचद्वार ररनने रने उपरद्वावंत पद्वायद्वा गयद्वा वर प्रवतवनेदर दद्वारद्वा जजिस स्थल पर ममीट प्लद्वावंट लगद्वानने हनेततु मद्वानवचत्र स्वमीरक त ररद्वायने जिद्वानने रद्वा अनतुररोध वरयद्वा गयद्वा हह उसमने सने अजधरद्वावंश भद्वाग सद्वावरजिवनर सतुववधद्वाओवं एववं हररत पटमी रने अवंतगरत आतद्वा हह तथद्वा पशतु वधशद्वालद्वा ररो प्रद्वाजधररण वर उपववजधयक्षों रने सद्वावरजिवनर उपयरोवगतद्वाओवं वर शनेणमी मम रखद्वा गयद्वा हह / जजिसरद्वा भभ उपयरोग वरयने जिद्वानने पर ववचद्वार वरयने जिद्वानने रद्वा अजधरद्वार प्रद्वाजधररण बरोरर ररो हह तथद्वा प्रद्वाजधररण बरोरर दद्वारद्वा भभ उपयरोग पररववतरत वरयने जिद्वानने वर दशद्वा मम हमी प्रत्यद्वावनेदर रद्वा मद्वानवचत्र स्वमीरक त वरयद्वा जिद्वानद्वा सवंभव हह/ ऐसमी दशद्वा मम न्यद्वायरोवचत हरोगद्वा रकी प्रत्यद्वावनेदर दद्वारद्वा हररत कनेत्र मम वरयने गए २३२२.८१ ररो ध्वस्त वरयद्वा जिद्वायने / प्रत्यद्वावनेदर आदनेश जिद्वारमी हरोनने रकी वतजथ सने एर मद्वाह मम वरयने गए वनमद्वारण ररो हटद्वानने रने सद्वाक्ष्य प्रद्वाजधररण रने समक प्रस्ततुत ररने / यवद एर मद्वाह मम आवनेदर दद्वारद्वा हररत कनेत्र मम वरयने गए वनमद्वारण ररो ध्वस्त नहहीं वरयद्वा जिद्वातद्वा हह तरो उसरने ... रद्वायरवद्वाहमी प्रद्वाजधररण दद्वारद्वा ररद्वाई जिद्वाएगमी जजिस पर हरोनने वद्वालने व्यय प्रत्यद्वावनेदर सने वसभल वरयद्वा जिद्वायनेगद्वा / इसरने अवतररक प्रत्यद्वावनेदर दद्वारद्वा इस आदनेश रने उपरद्वावंत एर सपद्वाह रने अवंदर प्रद्वाजधररण रने समक भभ उपयरोग पररवतरन हनेततु आवनेदन पत्र वनयमद्वानतुसद्वार प्रस्ततुत वरयद्वा जिद्वायने/प्रत्यद्वावनेदर दद्वारद्वा आवनेदन पत्र प्रस्ततुत ररनने पर प्रद्वाजधररण दद्वारद्वा भभ उपयरोग पररवतरन रद्वा प्रस्तद्वाव वनयमद्वानतुसद्वार वनणरय हनेततु प्रद्वाजधररण रने बरोरर रने समक प्रस्ततुत रर तमीन मद्वाह रकी अवधमी रने अवंदर रद्वायरवद्वाहमी पभणर रकी जिद्वायने /आदनेश जिद्वारमी हरोनने रकी वतजथ सने चद्वार मद्वाह रने अवधमी तर प्रद्वाजधररण दद्वारद्वा प्रत्यद्वावनेदर रने वनमद्वारण रने ववरुद्ध ध्वस्तमीररण रकी रद्वायरवद्वाहमी नहहीं रकी जिद्वाएगमी / यवद प्रद्वाजधररण बरोरर दद्वारद्वा प्रत्यद्वावनेदर रद्वा भभ उपयरोग पररववतरत नहहीं वरयद्वा जिद्वातद्वा हह तरो प्रद्वाजधररण दद्वारद्वा प्रत्यद्वावनेदर रने ववरुद्ध पतुननः ध्वस्तमीररण आदनेश पद्वाररत वरयने जिद्वानने रकी आवश्यरतद्वा नहहीं हरोगमी/ प्रश्नगत आदनेश रने आधद्वार पर ध्वस्तमीररण रकी रद्वायरवद्वाहमी वनयमद्वानतुसद्वार ररद्वाई जिद्वाएगमी तथद्वा प्रत्यद्वावनेदर दद्वारद्वा वबनद्वा मद्वानवचत्र स्वमीरक त ररद्वायने औदरोवगर कनेत्र मम वरयने गए वनमद्वारण रद्वा प्रद्वाजधररण दद्वारद्वा आआँ रलन ररनने रने उपरद्वावंत उसरने शमन रकी रद्वायरवद्वाहमी रकी जिद्वाएगमी/"
According to the order of Commissioner dated 25.10.2017, the construction of the factory which was lying over green belt area to the extent of 2322.81 square meter was to be demolished by the petitioner within one month from the date of order, and in case same was not demolished within the said period, the authorities shall remove the construction over green belt area. The Commissioner further permitted the petitioner to file an application within a week in accordance with law for conversion of land use of the land which is earmarked as public utility land in the master plan. By the said order, the Commissioner has also directed that any construction which is lying over road widening area shall also be demolished.
The petitioner, thereafter, preferred revision against the order dated 25.10.2017 of the Commissioner on 05.06.2018 before the State Government. During the pendency of revision, the respondent no.6 passed an order dated 26.11.2018 sealing the factory of the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred stay application in the revision wherein an interim order dated 27.12.2018 was passed by the State Government whereby the operation of the order dated 26.11.2018 sealing the factory of the petitioner was stayed. Subsequent thereto, the State Government dismissed the revision of the petitioner by order dated 24.01.2019 affirming the order of the Commissioner dated 25.10.2017.
The orders dated 24.01.2019 passed by the State Government, order dated 25.10.2017 passed by the respondent no.5, orders dated 06.02.2019 & 12.02.2019 passed by the respondent no.7 are impugned in the present writ petition.
Challenging the aforesaid orders, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Commissioner while disposing of petitioner's objection issued certain directions; the first direction was to the petitioner to demolish the construction lying over green belt area, and the second direction was that in case the petitioner submits an application for conversion of land use within one week, same shall be forwarded to the State Government as per procedure prescribed. He further contends that so far as the direction with regard to demolition of construction on 2322.81 square ft. over green belt area is concerned, the same can be carried out only after the seal from the factory is removed in order to enable the petitioner to shift the machines and other articles lying over said area. He submits that the petitioner undertakes to remove the construction over green belt area within one month from the date seal is removed by the respondent no.4. Learned Senior Counsel has placed various orders which clearly reflects that the authorities have sealed the premises only because of non-demolition of construction lying over green belt area. Further submission is that the respondents are bound by the order passed by the Commissioner affirmed in revision, as it has attained finality between the parties. Hence, they are under obligation to consider the application of the petitioner with respect to change of land use in respect of public utility land. He also submits that the petitioner shall also remove the construction lying on road widening area. Further contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel is that they may be allowed to run the factory as heavy revenue is paid by the petitioner to the State Government which they earn by running factory and as such, sealing and closure of factory will not be for the advantage of anybody.
Refuting the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Advocate General submits that it is evident from the record that the factory was constructed without getting any map sanctioned. The construction is illegal and without any sanctioned map, therefore, the prayer as regards the running of factory over construction which is not as per law cannot be granted by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
He further contends that the petitioner has failed to discharge its part of obligation in complying with the order passed by the Commissioner inasmuch as as per the order of the Commissioner, the petitioner was required to demolish the construction over the green belt area within one month and, therefore, the action of the respondent no.4 in sealing the premises is just and proper. He further submits that the petitioner has not annexed any application for conversion of land used alongwith representation and only departmental notes have been enclosed with the writ petition which reflects about the submission of some application by the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid background, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the petitioner may file a fresh application under The Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development (Assessment, Levy and Collection of Land Use Conversion Charge) Rules, 2014 for consideration of conversion of land use of public utility land.
I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
The facts which emerges from the record is that there is no map sanctioned with respect to factory of the petitioner. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has got constructed the factory over the land which was ear-marked for public utility land, green belt area and road widening, but the facts remains that petitioner was allowed to run the factory despite there was no sanctioned map with regard to construction of factory.
Considering the facts of the present case and in view of submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and as it is also evident from various letters on record that the sealing of premises of factory was only for the reason that the petitioner failed to carry out demolition of green belt area and road widening area, this Court in view of undertaking of learned counsel for the petitioner to demolish the construction lying over green belt area and road widening area directs the respondent no.4 to deseal the premises within one week from the date of production of certified copy of the order, and the petitioner shall demolish the construction lying over green belt area as well as road widening area within a period of one month thereafter.
The petitioner is permitted to file a fresh application within a period of two weeks from the date he removes the constructions over green belt area and road widening area for conversion of land use of public utility area. In case such an application is filed, the Chairman, Development Authority as per procedure prescribed forward the application of the petitioner to the State Government for consideration of conversion of land use under Section 13 (2) of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 within a period of one month thereafter. It is expected of the State Government that it shall endeavour to take a decision in respect of application of the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of two months thereafter.
The prayer of the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner may be permitted to run the factory is rejected for the reason that there is no sanctioned map of the factory and the construction over the land is not as per law, therefore, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot allow the petitioner to perpetuate the illegality by allowing it to run the factory in a premises not constructed by adhering to provisions of law.
The writ petition is disposed off subject to above observations. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019/S.Sharma