LI Network
Published on: December 10, 2023 at 15:32 IST
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that proceedings under Section 28-A of the UP Urban Planning and Development Act 1973 cannot be initiated for alleged different land usage than the sanctioned purpose.
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, presiding over the bench, asserted that for such proceedings, notice under Section 27 or Section 28 must precede the order under Section 28-A. Notably, if the land is accused of being used for a purpose other than the sanctioned one, Section 28-A does not apply.
M/S Nutema Health Care Pvt. Ltd., operating a multi-speciality care hospital in Meerut District since April 2017, faced legal action under Section 28-A(1) of the 1973 Act.
The order directed sealing of premises, alleging the parking space was being utilized for unauthorized purposes like a Lab, Operation Theater, and Blood Bank. The petitioner, who had acquired adjoining land for parking, had a compounding map application pending.
An appeal against the sealing order revealed the compounding map was under consideration, and directions were issued for removing 40% of the partitioned area within a month.
The petitioner approached the Chief Town Planner and Zonal Officer, deposited Rs. 1,25,00,000, and sought consideration for the compounding map. Despite this, an order for the removal of 40% of the partitioned area was issued during the ongoing application, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the initial Section 28-A(1) order lacked jurisdiction, asserting that notice under Sections 27 or 28 should precede any Section 28-A order. It was argued that proceedings under Section 28-A apply when development deviates from the sanctioned map, while Section 26(2) covers instances of property use differing from the sanctioned purpose. The counsel emphasized that initiating proceedings under Section 28-A for alleged different land usage was improper, rendering any consequential order void.
The court emphasized that Section 28-A empowers the Vice-Chairman to order sealing only after proceedings under Sections 27 or 28 have been initiated. Quoting the Supreme Court’s precedent, the court stated that if the basis of a proceeding is flawed, all subsequent actions are legally void.
Relying on this principle, the court concluded that since the initial order stated the parking area was being used for different purposes, Section 28-A proceedings were improper.
Resultantly, the impugned orders were quashed, and the Development Authority was instructed to decide on the pending compounding application.
Case Title: M/S Nutema Health Care Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT – C No. – 42393 of 2023]
