2016 (4) TMI 1287 - HC - Indian Laws

Court affirms revocation of construction sanction due to fraud, rules against lessees' rights post-lease, orders removal of unauthorized structures.

The court upheld the revocation of the construction sanction by ADA due to fraud and misrepresentation. It ruled that the lessees had no legal rights over ... Action of ADA in sanctioning map/plan of constructions over disputed land - Held that:- This Court finds its constitutional obligation and duty to make these observations having come across the flagrant violation of statute on the part of both the parties in the case in hand, and, that too, without resorting to accountability and responsibility of the Officers of the statutory body. The attempt of violator is to retain benefit from persistent and frequent violation of the statute. Time has come when State Government and ADA should look into the matter and take appropriate steps in the following manner: '(i) ADA is directed to ensure implementation of master plan and zonal development plan etc. strictly in accordance with one as approved under the statute and no change, alternation, amendment be allowed therein except in accordance with procedure prescribed in Act, 1973 and in particular section 13 thereof. (ii) The ADA shall put on its website every sanctioned plan(s)/map(s) etc. of any development/construction in the area under its operation, submitted by any individual, Corporate body, Government or its instrumentalities etc., approved on and after 1.1.2001 till date and henceforth. In respect to sanctioned plan of city etc., the same shall also be placed on website. In respect to individual plan(s)/map(s), as above, which shall include colonies, townships etc., the sanctioned plan(s)/map(s) etc. shall be placed on website wherever the area of land is 200 square meters and above; or the building constructed and owned by an individual for his own use, but is three storied and above. In case there is any data problem in a single website, the ADA may open more sites locality wise etc., as advised technically. (iii) If any developer, builder, contractor, individual or corporate or Government etc., as the case may be, has violated sanctioned plan/map and has applied for compounding, the kind of violation and the order passed by ADA compounding the said violation, if any, the reasons for the same and the procedure followed therein shall also be made known to the public at large by giving details on the website, as directed above. (iv) The ADA shall also give details of officers responsible for sanction, inspection, enforcement and approval of plan/map, the actual execution thereof and implementation of plan in respect to respective areas and the officers who remained posted since 1.1.2000 and onwards in respect to above work and their period of function shall also be let known to public at large. (v) A High Powered Committee shall also be constituted in ADA headed by a retired judicial officer, not below the rank of District Judge, to find out year wise deviation in the implementation of plan who shall submit its periodical report every fortnight to ADA and it shall then be the responsibility of ADA through its Vice Chairman and Secretary to seek remedial steps in the light of report received and remove illegal encroachment, obstruction, construction etc. without any further delay. (vi) The ADA will also specify and shall make it known to public at large by placing relevant information on website as to which particular area is reserved and for what purpose and the activities which are not permissible to be carried out therein. (vii) In addition to what has been said above, in the next six months, the ADA shall find out the activities which are/were not permissible in a particular area but are/have being carried out; and shall immediately take steps for stopping/removing those activities. All subsequent requisite steps necessary to check unauthorised use or enjoyment etc. by anyone shall also be taken forthwith. (viii) The Principal Secretary/Secretary, Urban Development, U.P. is directed to look into this matter and appropriate instructions, if necessary, by issuing a Government Order, be given to all other Development Authorities in the State of U.P. to follow steps as directed above. The Principal Secretary shall issue necessary instructions within two months and shall also lay down a time table for all Development Authorities to take appropriate steps, as directed above herein. (ix) A High Powered Committee at the level of the Government shall also be constituted to find out as to how many violations in different Development Authorities which constitute an offence under section 26 and 26-D have been committed and whether any criminal prosecution has been initiated against the guilty in the past decade, i.e., from 1.1.2000 and onwards. If not, who are the persons responsible for such lapses. The Committee, as directed above, shall be constituted within 15 days and it shall submit its first report in six months after its constitution to the Court.” Issues Involved:1. Legality of the revocation of the construction sanction by the Allahabad Development Authority (ADA).2. Rights of the petitioners over the disputed Nazul land.3. Status of lessees after the expiration of the lease period.4. Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining the sanction.5. Compounding of unauthorized constructions under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Revocation of the Construction Sanction by ADA:The petitioners challenged the revocation of the construction sanction by ADA, arguing that once sanctioned, it could not be withdrawn. ADA countered that the sanction was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation, justifying its revocation. The court upheld ADA's revocation, emphasizing that fraud vitiates everything and that ADA was within its rights to recall the sanction obtained through fraudulent means.2. Rights of the Petitioners Over the Disputed Nazul Land:The court examined the history of the lease of the disputed Nazul land, which expired on 6.2.1961. The petitioners claimed rights based on subsequent transactions and possession. However, the court concluded that after the lease expired, the lessees became 'unauthorized occupants' with no legal rights over the land. The court emphasized that there was no automatic renewal of the lease, and the petitioners' subsequent transactions were illegal and void.3. Status of Lessees After the Expiration of the Lease Period:The court referred to the Supreme Court's rulings in Shanti Prasad Devi v. Shanker Mahto and Sarup Singh Gupta v. S. Jagdish Singh, which held that mere acceptance of rent does not signify the continuation of a lease after its expiration. The court reiterated that the lessees became unauthorized occupants after the lease expired and had no legal right to continue occupying the land or transferring it to others.4. Allegations of Fraud and Misrepresentation in Obtaining the Sanction:ADA alleged that the petitioners obtained the construction sanction through fraud and misrepresentation. The court found that the petitioners did not disclose material facts regarding their lack of legal rights over the land. The court emphasized that fraud vitiates everything and upheld ADA's revocation of the sanction, noting that the petitioners' actions were illegal and void.5. Compounding of Unauthorized Constructions Under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973:The petitioners argued that their unauthorized constructions should be regularized upon payment of compounding charges. The court rejected this argument, stating that compounding charges do not regularize unauthorized constructions but only compound the offense to avoid criminal liability. The court emphasized that unauthorized constructions cannot be legalized through compounding and must be demolished if not in conformity with the master plan.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding ADA's revocation of the construction sanction and declaring the petitioners' transactions and constructions illegal and void. The court directed ADA to ensure strict adherence to the master plan and take necessary steps to remove unauthorized constructions. The court also issued directions to the state government and ADA to enhance transparency and accountability in the approval and enforcement of development plans.