Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri B.R.J. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner in the first writ petition and for the proposed applicant in the second writ petition as he has filed an impleadment application.
Sri Sharawan Kumar Pandey, learned Advocate, has been heard for the petitioner in the second writ petition and Sri B.K. Ojha, learned Advocate, has been heard for the respondent-Development Authority in both petitions.
The first writ petition has been filed by Smt. Hemlata Pandey praying that possession of the Plot No. G.K.-33, for which the lease deed had been granted on 20.2.2003 and in respect whereof a free hold deed has been executed on 30.1.2012, should be handed over to her as the petitioner has cleared all the dues and has made all payments in respect thereof to the Allahabad Development Authority.
In between, Smt. Shivani Kesharwani, the petitioner of the second writ petition appears to have stated raising constructions over a plot measuring 167.22 square metres which she states to have purchased through a sale deed from one Smt. Fatima Bibi, who according to her, was the recorded tenure holder of Plot No. 864. The said petitioner has been restrained by the Development Authority by serving a show cause notice under section 27(1) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 from raising any constructions presumably on account of the dispute about the status of the said land, which the respondents allege is a construction being raised over Plot No. 527, and not Plot No. 864.
The prayer for a mandamus by Smt. Shivani is founded on the ground that the map has been duly sanctioned by the Development Authority and all dues have been paid as demanded by the Development Authority to that effect.
It is, therefore, clear from perusal of the pleadings in both the writ petitions that Smt. Hemlata Pandey has made a prayer for securing her interest over Plot No. G.K.-33 which the learned counsel for the Development Authority has stated to be existing over Plot No. 527. He submits that as a matter of fact Smt. Shivani Kesharwani appears to have encroached this plot of land and the construction is not being raised by her over Plot No. 864. The dispute, therefore, is of demarcation between these two plots which are stated to be adjoining.
Sri B.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the Development Authority on instructions, has informed the Court that on 03.03.2014, the Development Authority has already called upon the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of the area concerned to carry out the demarcation process in order to resolve this dispute.
Consequently, in our opinion, it would be appropriate that the Development Authority proceeds to get the land demarcated as indicated by Sri Ojha through the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the presence of both these parties on the date fixed and to be informed accordingly. This shall be done within a period of three weeks from today.
A certified copy of the order shall be given to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges for placing it before the Authority so as to comply with the same and pass appropriate orders in this regard. The Development Authority shall proceed as per the demarcation proceedings to take any action, if warranted.
In the event, if the land is demarcated as directed hereinabove, then it shall be open to Development Authority also to proceed to hand over possession of the plot of Smt. Hemlata Pandey for which the lease deed and free hold deed has already been executed.
The status-quo, as existing today, shall be maintained by the parties till orders are passed accordingly.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed off.
Order Date :- 12.3.2014 Puspendra