Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12193 of 2018 Petitioner :- Hari Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 03 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jagdish Singh,Virendra Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Srivastava,Kaushalendra Nath Singh
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri V.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Anuj Srivastava and Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh appearing for respondent No.4.
The petitioner has come up in this writ petition challenging the notice dated 03.08.2017 and the order dated 13.11.2017 passed by the Project Engineer, NOIDA.
The petitioner is required to stop construction work over khasra No. 173-M area 4.0812 hectares as there is no sanctioned map vide the aforesaid notice and the order. On consideration of the reply of the petitioner, final order has been passed directing for the removal of the said constructions within 15 days failing which the constructions would be demolished by the respondent No.4.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land does not belong to the NOIDA inasmuch as the notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the same has been quashed by the High Court vide its judgement and order dated 19.08.2016 though the S.L.P. of the NOIDA in this regard is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Notwithstanding the non-acquisition of the land, it is clear that the land in dispute is within the development area of the respondent No.4 wherein no constructions are permitted without the sanction of the building map. The petitioner does not have a sanctioned map for raising the constructions. In view of this, respondent No.4 is well within its jurisdiction to stop the constructions by treating it to be unauthorised.
Moreover, the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal before the Chairman of the NOIDA against the aforesaid order wherein all factual as well as legal aspects could be adjudicated.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the constructions of the petitioner are old and not fresh is a factual matter which can be more properly dealt with by the appellate authority, if so raised and so is the matter of regularisation of the constructions in accordance with the provisions of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Rural Abadi Site (Management and Regularisation for Residential Purposes) Regulations, 2006.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not deem it proper to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction in the matter and the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal against the impugned order wherein all questions as referred to above may be raised by him.
The writ petition is disposed of as aforesaid.
Order Date :- 30.7.2018 Nirmal Sinha