Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35677 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Babita Devi Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhawan Kumar Pandey,Vikrant Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupeshwar Dayal,Satyendra Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
This petition for writ is preferred to quash the order dated 5th May, 2018 and the order dated 16th May, 2018 issued by the Officers of the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut for demolition of the property in question.
A challenge is also given to the order/notice dated 15th September, 2012 whereby the sanctioned layout plan has been cancelled said to be without giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
In brief, facts of the case are that one Sri Vipin Chandra Gulati executed a power of attorney in favour of one Sri Bhagmal with regard to delegating certain rights in the property in question. Sri Bhagmal by a registered sale deed dated 12th June, 2009 got the property transferred in his name. Subsequent thereto, under a registered sale deed dated 21st October, 2009 the property was sold by Sri Bhagmal to one Sri Vineet Kumar Arya. Sri Vinit Kumar Arya submitted an application to have an approval of a layout for construction of a house. Necessary approval was granted by the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut. However, Sri Vinit Kumar Arya sold the property in question to the present petitioner by executing a sale deed dated 28th March, 2010. Subsequent thereto wife of Sri Vipin Chandra Gulati filed a civil suit for setting aside the registered sale deed made in favour of Sri Bhagmal, Vinit Kumar Arya and the present petitioner. The suit aforesaid, came to be dismissed for default. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not aware about the fact as to whether the suit has been restored or not.
On 15th August, 2012, the layout plan that was approved in favour of Vinit Kumar Arya was cancelled and information in this regard too was given to Vinit Kumar Arya on 15th September, 2012. In the year 2018, the respondents now passed an order for demolition of the property in question after seizing the same. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred.
The argument advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the sale deeds executed in favour of Bhagmal, Vineet Kumar Arya and the petitioner are valid sale deeds and as such the petitioner is having a valid rights over the land. So far as cancellation of layout plan is concerned, it is submitted that no notice was served upon the petitioner before cancellation of the plan and whatever notice that was given in the name of Vineet Kumar Arya, who had no right with regard to property in question subsequent to 28th March, 2010.
According to learned counsel, the respondents while issuing the orders for demolition and seizure of the property have not taken into consideration all these relevant facts.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Meerut Development Authority, Meerut states that after cancellation of layout plan the petitioner had no right to raise construction and as such the order passed by the authority competent for demolition of the building is valid. For the same reason he has supported the order for seizure of the property.
Having considered the facts narrated above, we are of the view that this petition for writ involves the issues which requires consideration.
Accordingly, the petition is admitted for hearing.
Let it be listed for hearing in additional cause list on 3rd December, 2018.
In the meanwhile, the respondent-Meerut Development Authority shall not demolish the property in question. The Meerut Development Authority is further directed to release the property and handover to the petitioner provided the petitioner undertakes that in the event of dismissal of this petition for writ, he will handover complete vacant possession of the property to the Meerut Development Authority and further shall also pay mesne profit i.e. to be determined at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month for the period he keep the property in his possession. The petitioner shall also furnish an undertaking that ill disposal of the writ petition he will not sale, transfer or otherwise alienate the property in question.
Order Date :- 26.10.2018 Bhaskar (Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Govind Mathur, A.C.J.)