Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Misuse of Basement Area Resreved for Parking Lot to Commercial Shops is Illegal 1999 Sc

Misuse of Basement Area Resreved for Parking Lot to Commercial Shops is Illegal 1999 Sc

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4|Likes:
M.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD. Vs. RADHEY SHYAM SAHU AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: BENCH: S.B.Majmudar, D.P.Wadhwa 26/07/1999 - D.P. Wadhwa, J. - These appeals are directed against the judgment dated August 23, 1994 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, (Lucknow Bench). By a common judgment in three writ petitions, High Court speaking through Shobha Dixit, J. held that the decision of ........
M.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD. Vs. RADHEY SHYAM SAHU AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: BENCH: S.B.Majmudar, D.P.Wadhwa 26/07/1999 - D.P. Wadhwa, J. - These appeals are directed against the judgment dated August 23, 1994 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, (Lucknow Bench). By a common judgment in three writ petitions, High Court speaking through Shobha Dixit, J. held that the decision of ........

More info:

Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/18/2014

pdf

text

original

 
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIAPage 1 of 53
PETITIONER:M.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD.Vs.RESPONDENT:RADHEY SHYAM SAHU AND OTHERSDATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/07/1999BENCH:S.B.Majmudar, D.P.WadhwaJUDGMENT:D.P. Wadhwa, J.These appeals are directed against the judgment datedAugust 23, 1994 of a Division Bench of the High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad, (Lucknow Bench). By a commonjudgment in three writ petitions, High Court speakingthrough Shobha Dixit, J. held that the decision of theLucknow Nagar Mahapalika (’Mahapalika’ for short), also nowcalled Nagar Nigam or Corporation, permitting M.I. BuildersPvt. Ltd. (the appellant herein) to construct undergroundshopping complex in the Jhandewala Park (also known asAminuddaula Park) situated at Aminabad Market, Lucknow, wasillegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. High Court setaside and quashed the relevant resolutions of the Mahapalikapermitting such construction and also the agreement datedNovember 4, 1993 entered into between the Mahapalika and theappellant for the purpose. Writ of mandamus was issued tothe Mahapalika to restore back the park in its originalposition within a period of three months from the date ofthe judgment and till that was done, to take adequate safetymeasures and to provide necessary safeguard and protectionto the public, users of the park. High Court had noticedthat the fact that the park was of historical importance wasnot denied by the Mahapalika and also the fact thatperseverance or maintenance of the park was necessary fromthe environmental angle and that the only reason advanced bythe Mahapalika for construction of the undergroundcommercial complex was to ease the congestion in area. HighCourt, however, took judicial notice of the conditionsprevailing at the Aminabad market. It said it was socrowded that it was bursting from all its seams.Construction of the underground shopping complex in questionwould only complicate the situation and that the presentscheme would further congest the area. It said that thepublic purpose, which is alleged to be served byconstruction of the underground commercial complex, seemedtotally illusory.Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court,appellant has come to this Court. Mahapalika also feltaggrieved and filed appeals (Civil Appeal Nos. 9326-28 of1994) but these appeals by the Mahapalika were subsequentlyallowed to be withdrawn by order dated February 6, 1997.There is controversy as to how the Mahapalika which had
 
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIAPage 2 of 53
earlier justified its action later turned round and soughtto withdraw the appeals. The order allowing withdrawal ofthe appeals by the Mahapalika is as under: -"I.A. Nos. 10 TO 12 INCIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9326-28 OF 1994Nagar Mahapalika AppellantsVersusRadhey Shyam Sahu & others RespondentsO R D E RTaken on board.The learned counsel for the appellant seeks leave towithdraw the appeals and states that Mr. S.V. Deshpandewho appears for the other side has no objection to thewithdrawal. The appeals will, therefore, stand disposed ofas withdrawn with no order as to costs.Sd/- .......CJINew Delhi, Sd/- February 6, 1997 ......,J."Mahapalika also cancelled the building plans. Thisaction of the Mahapalika was subject matter of criticism bythe appellant as to how a duly sanctioned plan could berevoked without any notice to the appellant. We may, atthis stage, itself reproduce the relevant portion of theresolution dated August 6, 1996 of the Mahapalika forwithdrawal of its appeals which is as under:-"The Lucknow Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabadhas declared the agreement dated 4.11.1993 executed betweenthe Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow and M.I. Builders, KaramatMarket Lucknow in respect of construction of undergroundPalika Bazar and Multistoreyal parking on Jhandewala ParkAminabad, Lucknow as invalid and not in the public interestvide their judgment dated 23.8.1994.The Hon’ble High Court rendered the above saidJudgment by accepting the writ petitions preferred byseveral elected sabhasad of the then Nagar Mahapalika andthe citizens.On the directions of the then Nagar Pramukh ShriAkhilesh Das, who wanted to cause undue profit to M.I.Builders against the interest of Nagar Mahapalika now NagarNigam Lucknow, the citizens of Lucknow, the Nagar NigamLucknow filed Special Leave Petition No. 17223-25 of 1994in the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the Judgment of theHon’ble High Court.It is proposed that in the interest of the citizen ofLucknow and the Lucknow Nagar Nigam and pending SpecialLeave Petition No. 17223-25 of 1994 in the Hon’ble SupremeCourt be withdrawn and the Nagar Nigam Lucknow be furtherdirected to oppose the Special Leave Petition filed by M/s.M.I. Builders in the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the
 
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIAPage 3 of 53
Judgment dated 23.8.1994 of Lucknow Bench of Hon’ble HighCourt of Allahabad.Unanimously decided that the aforesaid resolution bepassed and accordingly the action may be taken."The letter revoking the sanctioned building plans isdated April 17, 1997 and is as under:-"ToM/s M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. Karamat Market,Nishatganj, LucknowSir,Vide this office letter No. 223/Sa.Sa.A./95 dtd.23.1.1995 the building plans for construction of undergroundshopping and parking complex at Jhandewala Park, Ameenabadwere sanctioned.After taking legal advice by the Hon’ble Nagar Pramukhfrom the standing counsel of the Nagar Nigam and Add.Advocate General the earlier sanctioned building plans hasbeen revoked vide order dated 17.4.97. As such these haveno legal sanctity.Please be informed.Yours faithfully, Sd/- S.K. Gupta Mukhya NagarAdhikari 17.4.97 Copy to: The Vice Chairman, LucknowDevelopment Authority, for information.Sd/- S.K. Gupta Mukhya Nagar Adhikari"There were three writ petitions before the High Courtand during the course of hearing of those petitions HighCourt had directed maintenance of status quo. At that time,it would appear only digging in some part of the park hadbeen done and there was no construction. When the mattercame before this Court, by order dated December 14, 1994 theCourt passed the following order:-"Exemption from filing official translation isallowed.Liberty to add the omitted parties in the cause title.Leave granted.We have heard counsel on the question of grant ofinterim relief.Printing dispensed with.The operation of the impugned order of the High Courtis stayed on the following conditions:Taking all the facts and circumstances intoconsideration and having regard to the fact that it may notbe possible for this Court to hear the appeal within a shorttime having regard to the pressure of work and pendency ofold cases, we direct that the appellant shall be permitted

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->