Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.
Heard Sri Rajeev Sisodia, learned counsel for petitioner.
This petition has been filed seeking the following main reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no. 2 & 3 to demolish the illegal constructions raised over the site set back of House No. HIG-32, Brij Vihar Colony, Ghaziabad.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no. 4 & 5 to stop commercial activity (Cycle/Rickshaw Repairing Shop) in the House No. HIG-32, Brij Vihar Colony, Ghaziabad.
(iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
From the pleadings it appears that petitioner is a resident of House No. HIG-33, Brij Vihar Colony, Ghaziabad on the strength of power of attorney executed by allottee Sri Himender Singh and the disputed House no. 32 is situated adjacent. A complaint was made before the Ghaziabad Development Authority that respondent no. 4 was making illegal constructions over the side set back and has started commercial activity therein in the form of Cycle/Rickshaw Repairing Shop. The illegal constructions wherein the Cycle/Rickshaw Repairing Shop was running was sealed under Section 28 A of U.P Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) vide order dated 14.05.2012 Pleadings further go to show that respondent no. 4 filed an affidavit before the Development Authority giving a committment that he shall stop the commercial activity. The seal was opened and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of a mere affidavit the seal could not have been removed and the illegal constructions are liable to be demolished.
Referring to an order dated 11.03.2014 which has been filed as Annexure 9 to the writ petition, learned counsel appearing for the Development Authority pointed out that after the affidavit, an inspection was made wherein it was found that the commercial activity has been stopped and the construction is in the nature of garage and thus, no further action was warranted.
Learned counsel for petitioner, despite our repeated querry failed to point out that the garage constructed in the side set back is impermissible and illegal. The Development Authority has recorded the finding that commercial activity has been stopped and unless it is demonstrated that construction of garage in side set back is illegal and impermissible, the relief prayed for, is not liable to be granted.
The writ petition is thus, devoid of merits and, accordingly, stands dismissed.
Comments