Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32402 of 2015
Petitioner :- Sudeep Garg Respondent :- Agra Development Authority & 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- M.C. Chaturvedi
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J. Hon'ble Huluvadi G. Ramesh,J.
Sudeep Garg is before us questioning the validity of decision dated 19th May, 2015, undertaken by Deputy Secretary, Agra Development Authority, under Section 27 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
On the matter being taken up today, Sri P.N. Saxena, Advocate, assisted by Sri Amit Saxena has submitted that in the present case, the order in question has been passed on totally wrong premises that wall in question is situated within flood effected area, whereas the earlier report totally belies such a situation.
Under U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, when an order has been passed in exercise of power conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 27, and sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Act, clearly proceed to mention that any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (1) may appeal to the Chairman against that order within thirty days from the date thereof and the Chairman may after hearing the parties to the appeal either allow or dismiss the appeal or may reverse or vary any part of the order. Sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the Act, proceeds to mention that the Chairman may stay the execution of an order against which an appeal has been filed before it under sub-section (1). Sub-section (4) of Section 27 of the Act clearly proceeds to mention that the decision of the Chairman on the appeal and, subject only to such decision the order under sub-section (1), shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court and sub-section (5) of Section 27 of the Act, proceeds to mention that the provisions of this section shall be in addition to, not in derogation of, any other provision relating to demolition of building contained in any other law for the time being in force.
Once U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, is a self contained Act and against the action taken under Section 27 of the Act, there is a statutory alternative remedy provided for and the authority can pass interim relief, then there is no occasion for us to bypass the remedy of statutory appeal available before the Chairman of the authority concerned.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
Order Date :- 28.5.2015 Atmesh
Neutral Citation No. - 2015:AHC:77963-DB
Comments