# Amrita Bharti v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 765
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-03
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 35545 of 2022
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta, Jayant Banerji
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amrita-bharti-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50286
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - The U.P. Industrial Area
Development
Act,
1976
-
Sections
2(b),2(d),3,6,9,12-A,12-B,18 & 19 - The
U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 - The United
Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 , The
Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and
Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961, The U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 1901, The Constitution
of India - Article 14,21,31A,243(d),243Q(1) - When objective of the two
legislations is different and they operate
in different fields -there is no question of
any conflict. (Para - 17)

(B) Civil Law - The U.P. Industrial Area
Development Act, 1976 - Section 10 -
merely regulates the development and
constructions in the area declared as
''industrial development area' - does not
impose
any
permanent restriction in
raising constructions - Section 10 does not
prevent
individuals
from
raising
construction
in
areas
under
the
Authority's
jurisdiction
-
regulates
construction activity through regulatory
steps to ensure proper planning and public
interest - Section 19 - specific provisions
for
obtaining
permission
for
raising
construction, not banning development or
construction activity.(Para - 4,19)

Petitioner (co-owner of residential plot) -
illegally subdivided and raised constructions -
violating Section 10 of Act - Constructions
ordered to be removed within 15 days - causing
Authority's cost and expense - Petitioner claims
- illegal demolition order - violates Nagar
Panchayat's powers and property rights -
Constitutional validity - under challenge -
Section 10 of U.P. Industrial Area Development
Act, 1976, notifications issued under constitution
, notifications issued by State Government and
766 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
orders from Competent Authority. (Para -2 to
4)

HELD:-Petitioner raised constructions without
Authority approval, causing prejudicial impact
on area development, and these findings are
not challenged.(Para - 19)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Amrita Bharti Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
765
Matters)
Direction,
1983
for
taking
possession, but no such procedure, as
prescribed
in
Direction,
1983,
was
followed.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of
U.P. vs. Hari Ram, reported in (2013) 4
SCC 280, has clearly observed that unless
the actual possession is taken, the land will
not be vested in the State and on the
enforcement of Act, 1999 proceeding under
the Ceiling Act will abate and the tenure
holder is entitled to retain the land which
was declared surplus.

9. In view of the above fact, we are of
the considered view that the State has not
brought on record any material to show that
the actual possession was taken from the
petitioner in pursuance of the fresh ceiling
proceeding initiated on the basis of order
dated 10.2.1993 of the competent authority,
hence the ceiling proceeding regarding the
land of the petitioners in Gata Nos. 1631,
1659, 1660 of total area 2971.7566 sq. meters
in Village Dhandhupura Tajganj, Tehsil
Sadar, District Agra has abated under the Act,
1999. The petitioners are entitled to retain the
land and respondents are directed not to
interfere in the possession of the above land.

10. With the aforesaid direction, the
petition is allowed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 765
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ-C No. 35545 of 2022

Amrita Bharti ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Gautam Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Suresh Singh, Sri Manish Goyal
(Sr. Advocate)

(A) Civil Law - The U.P. Industrial Area
Development
Act,
1976
-
Sections
2(b),2(d),3,6,9,12-A,12-B,18 & 19 - The
U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 - The United
Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 , The
Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and
Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961, The U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 1901, The Constitution
of India - Article 14,21,31A,243(d),243Q(1) - When objective of the two
legislations is different and they operate
in different fields -there is no question of
any conflict. (Para - 17)

(B) Civil Law - The U.P. Industrial Area
Development Act, 1976 - Section 10 -
merely regulates the development and
constructions in the area declared as
''industrial development area' - does not
impose
any
permanent restriction in
raising constructions - Section 10 does not
prevent
individuals
from
raising
construction
in
areas
under
the
Authority's
jurisdiction
-
regulates
construction activity through regulatory
steps to ensure proper planning and public
interest - Section 19 - specific provisions
for
obtaining
permission
for
raising
construction, not banning development or
construction activity.(Para - 4,19)

Petitioner (co-owner of residential plot) -
illegally subdivided and raised constructions -
violating Section 10 of Act - Constructions
ordered to be removed within 15 days - causing
Authority's cost and expense - Petitioner claims
- illegal demolition order - violates Nagar
Panchayat's powers and property rights -
Constitutional validity - under challenge -
Section 10 of U.P. Industrial Area Development
Act, 1976, notifications issued under constitution
, notifications issued by State Government and
766 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
orders from Competent Authority. (Para -2 to
4)

HELD:-Petitioner raised constructions without
Authority approval, causing prejudicial impact
on area development, and these findings are
not challenged.(Para - 19)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Shri Niwaz Nagar & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. ,
Writ - C No. 50154 of 2016

2. Rakam Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. , Writ - C
No. 9899 of 2015

3. Saij Gram Panchayat Vs St. of Guj. & ors. ,
AIR 1999 SC 826

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. The petitioner has challenged the
constitutional validity of Section 10 of the
U.P. Industrial Area Development Act,
1976 (for short ''the Act'); the notification
dated 18.12.2015, issued under the proviso
to clause (1) of Article 243-Q of the
Constitution of India; the notification dated
22.8.2001, issued by the State Government,
under Section 2(d) of the Act and the order
dated 29.8.2022, passed by the Competent
Authority, Yamuna Expressway Industrial
Development Authority, Gautam Budh
Nagar (respondent no. 3 - for short ''the
Authority').

BACKGROUND

2. The petitioner claims to be coowner of a residential plot in Khasra No.
422, area 561.86 square meters, Dankaur,
Gautam Budh Nagar on basis of a sale deed
dated 12.3.2021, executed in her favour by
one Satish Goyal. The impugned order
passed by respondent no. 3 dated 29.8.2022
records that an inspection was made by the
officials of the Authority on 1.4.2022 and
whereupon it transpired that the petitioner
had sub-divided the plot and had raised
illegal constructions over it. The same was
prejudicially affecting the proper planning
of the industrial development area and falls
within the mischief of Section 10 of the
Act. It was held to be violative of Section 9
of the Act and Regulation 1 and 3 of the
Yamuna
Expressway
Development
Authority (Construction and Demolition)
Regulations, 2010, as no prior approval
was taken from the Authority before raising
the constructions. There is also a recordal
to the effect that the area in question is part
of the ''industrial development area', so
notified by notification dated 24.4.2001 and
the notification issued on 18.12.2015,
notifying eighty villages, including Village
Dankaur as part of ''industrial township'
under the proviso to clause (1) of Article
243-Q of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, the constructions raised
were held to be illegal and have been
directed to be removed within fifteen days,
failing which, the Authority would remove
it at the cost and expense of the petitioner.

CONTENTIONS

3. The basic ground of challenge is
that the plot in respect of which the
impugned order has been passed, is situated
in
Village
Dankaur.
The
authority
competent to grant approval to the
constructions
was
Nagar
Panchayat,
Dankaur and the petitioner had applied
before it on 2.11.2022 for grant of approval
of the constructions. The said application is
still pending. In these circumstances, the
order passed by respondent no. 3 for
demolition of the constructions on the
ground that the petitioner had not taken
permission from the Authority, is wholly
5 All. Amrita Bharti Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
767
illegal, as it amounts to usurpation of the
powers of Nagar Panchayat, Dankaur. It is
contended that the Act of 1976 and the U.P.
Municipalities Act, 1916 under which
Nagar Panchayat, Dankaur would be
exercising its power, could not operate
simultaneously. The notification issued
under Article 243-Q results in divesting the
Nagar Palika of its jurisdiction in the
matter. It is also contended that Section 10
is violative of Articles 14, 21 and 31A of
the Constitution of India, as it has the effect
of permanently depriving a person of
his/her right to use and enjoy the property
or to raise constructions over it.

4. On the other hand, Sri Manish
Goyal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by
Sri Suresh Singh, appearing for the
respondent Authority, submitted that the
vires of the notification dated 18.12.2015,
issued under the proviso to clause (1) of
Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India,
has already been upheld by this Court in
Writ - C No. 50154 of 2016 (Shri Niwaz
Nagar and Another vs. State of U.P. and
5 Others), decided on 4.7.2017. It is urged
that in the said judgment, this Court had
considered the interplay between the
constitutional scheme and the provisions of
the Act and had held that the notification
does not violate any provision of the
Constitution. He has also placed reliance on
another judgment of this Court in Writ - C
No. 9899 of 2015 (Rakam Singh vs. State
of U.P. and 6 Others), decided on
1.5.2015, wherein the validity of a similar
notification dated 14.01.2015 was upheld.
It is further contended that Section 10 is a
provision which merely regulates the
development and constructions in the area
declared as ''industrial development area'
and does not impose any permanent
restriction
in
raising
constructions.
Therefore, the submission that the said
provision offends any mandate of the
Constitution, is not sustainable. It is also
urged that the petitioner having admittedly
raised constructions in an area declared as
''industrial development area', without prior
approval of the Authority, there is no
illegality in the impugned order and the
writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

ANALYSIS

5. The impugned notification dated
18.12.2015 was issued in exercise of
powers under Article 243-Q(1), which falls
under Part IX-A of the Constitution,
dealing with the Municipalities. It was
inserted by the Constitution (Seventyfourth Amendment Act), 1992 w.e.f.
1.6.1993.
Article
243
(d)
defines
''municipality' as an institution of selfgovernment
constituted
under
Article
243Q.
Article
243Q
envisages
three
different kinds of municipalities, namely, a
Nagar Panchayat for a transitional area, that
is to say, any area in transition from a rural
area to an urban area; a Municipal Council
for a smaller urban area; and a Municipal
Corporation for a larger urban area. The
proviso to clause (1) of Article 243Q
empowers the Governor to constitute a
municipality for any area or part thereof
where having regard to the size of the area
and the municipal services being provided
or proposed to be provided by an industrial
establishment in that area and such other
factors as are deemed fit, by public
notification, specify to be an industrial
township. Article 243Q is extracted below
for convenience of reference: -

243Q.
Constitution
of
Municipalities. - (1) There shall be
constituted in every State, -

(a)
a
Nagar
Panchayat
(by
whatever name called) for a transitional
768 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
area, that is to say, an area in transition
from a rural area to an urban area;

(b) a Municipal Council for a
smaller urban area; and

(c) a Municipal Corporation for a
larger urban area, in accordance with the
provisions of this Part:

Provided that a Municipality
under this clause may not be constituted in
such urban area or part thereof as the
Governor may, having regard to the size of
the area and the municipal services being
provided or proposed to be provided by an
industrial establishment in that area and
such other factors as he may deem fit, by
public notification, specify to be an
industrial township.

(2) In this article, "a transitional
area", "a smaller urban area" or "a larger
urban area" means such area as the
Governor may, having regard to the
population of the area, the density of the
population therein, the revenue generated
for local administration, the percentage of
employment in non-agricultural activities,
the economic importance or such other
factors as he may deem fit, specify by
public notification for the purposes of this
Part.

6. The proviso to clause (1) of Article
243Q is in nature of an exception to the
main provision. Where the Governor
specifies an area to be an ''industrial
township', having due regard to its size and
the municipal services being provided or
proposed to be provided by an industrial
establishment in that area and such other
factors as he may deem fit, a municipality
need not be constituted in such area. As a
corollary of the above, such an area would
stand excluded from the municipal area.
Any municipality already constituted for
such an area, would cease to exist.
Consequently, the municipal services, if
any, being hitherto provided by the
Municipality, would be provided by the
industrial establishment.

7.

The
U.P.
Industrial
Area
Development Act, 1976 provides for the
constitution of an Authority for the
development of certain areas in the State
into industrial and urban township and for
matters connected therewith. Section 2(b)
defines ''Authority' as that constituted under
Section 3 of the Act. Thereunder, the
''Authority' is a body corporate. Section
2(d) defines an ''industrial area' as an area
declared as such by the State Government
by notification. Section 6 of the Act enjoins
the
Authority
to
secure
planned
development of the industrial development
areas. Sub-section (2) of Section 6
enumerates some of the functions of the
Authority to enable it to achieve its
objectives. It includes preparation of plan
for development of the industrial area;
provide amenities, regulate erection of
buildings, prescribe land usage, etc. On
22.3.2016, by U.P. Act No. 10 of 2016,
sub-section (2) of Section 6 was amended
and the function of providing ''municipal
service' by the Authority was specifically
included. Sub-section (2) of Section 6, as
amended, is extracted below: -

(2) Without prejudice to the
generality of the objects of the Authority,
the Authority shall perform the following
functions :-

(a) to acquire land in the
industrial development area, by agreement
or through proceedings under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purposes of
this Act;

(b) to prepare a plan for the
development of the industrial development
area;
5 All. Amrita Bharti Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
769

(c) to demarcate and develop sites
for industrial, commercial and residential
purpose according to the plan;

(d) to provide infrastructure for
industrial,
commercial
and
residential
purposes;

(e) to provide amenities and
municipal services;

(f) to allocate and transfer either
by way of sale or lease or otherwise plots
of land for industrial, commercial or
residential purposes and such other land
uses as per master plan;

(g) to regulate the erection of
buildings and setting up of industries and
land uses as per master plan; and

(h) to lay down the purpose for
which a particular site or plot of land shall
be
used,
namely
for
industrial
or
commercial or residential purpose or any
other specified purpose in such area as per
the Master Plan.

8. Section 9 of the Act imposes ban
on erection of buildings in contravention of
Regulations and it reads as follows: -

9. Ban on erection of buildings
in contravention of regulations. - (1) No
person shall erect or occupy any building in
the
industrial
development
area
in
contravention of any building regulation
made under sub-section (2).

(2)
The
Authority
may
by
notification and with the prior approval of
the State Government make regulations to
regulate the erection of buildings and such
regulations may provide for all or any of
the following matters, namely -

(a) The materials to be used for
external and partition walls, roofs, floors
and other parts of a buildings and their
position or location or the method of
construction;

(b) Lay out plan of the building
whether
industrial,
commercial
or
residential;

(c) the height and slope of the
roofs and floors of any building which is
intended to be used for residential or
cooking purposes;

(d) the ventilation in, or the space
to be left about any building or part thereof
to secure circulation of air or for the
prevention of fire;

(e) the number and height of the
storeys of any building;

(f) the means to be provided for
the ingress and egress to and from any
building;

(g) the minimum dimensions of
rooms intended for use as living rooms or
sleeping rooms and the provision of
ventilation;

(h)
any
other
matter
in
furtherance of the proper regulation of
erection, completion and occupation of
buildings; and

(i) the certificates necessary and
incidental to the submission of plans
amended plans and completion reports.

(j) the time limit within which
any building shall be required to be erected
or repairs, additions, modifications is to be
made in an existing building, shall be
carried out and after completion thereof a
notice of completion of construction of
building
or
repairs,
additions
or
modifications as the case may be, shall be
lodged with the Authority and completion
certificate obtained therefrom.

9. Section 10 is power of the
Authority to ensure proper maintenance of
site or building so that it does not
prejudically affect the planned industrial
development of the area. Section 10 is
extracted below: -
770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. Power to require proper
maintenance of site or building - (1) If it
appears to the Authority that the condition
or use of any site or building is
prejudicially affecting or is likely to affect
the proper planning of or the amenities in
any part of the industrial development area
of the interests of the general public there,
it may serve on the transferee or occupier
of that site or building a notice requiring
him to take such steps and within such
period as may be specified in the notice and
thereafter to maintain it in such manner as
may be specified therein and in case such
transferee or occupier fails to take such
steps or to maintain it thereafter the
Authority man itself take such steps or
maintain it, and realize the cost incurred on
it from such transferee or occupier.

(2) If the State Government
considers it necessary or expedient in the
public interest it may, by a general or
special order, exempt wholly or partly - any
such transferee or occupier or any class
thereof from the taxes levied under subsection (1).

10. It is noteworthy that Section 12-A
and Section 12-B were inserted by U.P. Act
No. 4 of 2001 and U.P. Act No. 10 of 2016,
respectively and read as follows: -

12-A.
No
panchayat
for
industrial township. - Notwithstanding
anything contained to the contrary in any
Uttar Pradesh Act, where an industrial
development area or an part thereof is
specified to be an industrial township under
the proviso to clause (1) of Article 243-Q
of
the
Constitution,
such
industrial
development area or part thereof, if
included in a Panchayat area, shall, with
effect from the date of notification made
under the said proviso, stand excluded from
such Panchayat area and no Panchayat shall
be
constituted
for
such
industrial
development area or part thereof under the
United Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947
or the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats
and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961, as
the case may be, and any Panchayat
constituted for such industrial development
area or part thereof before the date of such
notification shall cease to exist.

12-B. (1) The Governor may, by
notification, specify under Article 243-Q of
the Constitution of India, the whole of
Special Investment Region or the Industrial
Development Area or any part thereof to be
an Industrial Township.

(2) Notwithstanding anything to
the contrary contained in any Uttar Pradesh
Act, where an special investment region or
industrial development area or any part
thereof is specified to be an Industrial
Township under the proviso to clause (1) of
Article 243Q of the Constitution of India,
such industrial development area or part
thereof, falling in a Municipality shall from
the date of notification stand excluded from
that Municipality area and all powers and
functions performed with respect to such
area shall be exercised or performed by the
Authority.

These provisions make explicit
the effect of any area being declared as
''industrial township' under the provisions
of Article 243-Q. If it was part of the
panchayat,
it
shall
stand
excluded
therefrom and any panchayat constituted
for such area or part thereof shall cease to
exist from the date of notification under
Article 243-Q. The same consequences are
to follow in case any area or part comprised
in a Municipality is declared as ''industrial
township'. It shall stand excluded from that
Municipality from the date of notification
and all powers and functions performed
with respect to such area shall be exercised
by the Authority.
5 All. Amrita Bharti Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
771

11. Section 18 invests the State
Government with the power to make rules
for carrying out the purposes of the Act.
Section 19 empowers the Authority to
make
regulations
with
the
previous
approval of the State Government, not
inconsistent with the provisions of the Act
or the Rules for proper administration of
the affairs of the Authority. In exercise of
the above powers, the ''Authority' has made
''the
Yamuna
Expressway
Industrial
Development Area Building Regulations,
2010
and
the
Yamuna
Expressway
Authority
Demolition
Regulations'
containing specific provisions regulating
the manner in which permission is to be
obtained for raising constructions in the
''industrial development area' and the power
of
the
Authority
to
demolish
the
constructions
made
without
obtaining
approval or contrary to the plans or usage
prescribed. Chapter-II Regulation 4 of the
Regulations,
2010
which
prohibits
construction activity in the ''industrial
development
area'
without
obtaining
approval is extracted below: -

4.0 Building permit - No person
shall erect any building or a boundary wall
or fencing without obtaining a prior permit
thereof, from the Chief Executive Officer
or an Officer authorized by the Chief
Executive Officer for this purpose.

Regulation 5(i) and (ii) of the
Demolition Regulations which empowers
the Authority to remove constructions
made without permission, approval or
sanction is as follows: -

5.(i) Where any development in
an industrial development area has been
commenced or continued in contravention
of the plan without the permission,
approval or sanction, referred to in
regulation - 1 or in contravention of any
condition subject to which such permission,
approval or sanction has been granted then,
without prejudice to the provisions of the
regulation - 4 and section - 15 of the Act,
the Competent Officer may make an order
requiring
the
development
to
be
discontinued from the date of service of the
order, and such order shall be complied
with accordingly.

(ii) Where such development is
not discontinued in pursuance of the order
under sub-regulation (I), Competent Officer
may require force to remove the person by
whom
the
development
has
been
commenced and all his assistance and
workmen from the place of development
within such time as may be specified in the
regulation.

12. The object and the scheme of the
Act demonstrably is to give impetus to the
development of industries in certain areas
in the State. The State Government declares
such areas as ''industrial development area'
by issuing notification under Section 2(d)
of the Act. The Industrial Development
Authority constituted under Section 3 for
such area gets invested with the power to
carry out development of the said area. As
noted above, one of the functions of the
Authority is to ensure that the development
which takes place in the area is such that it
does not have adverse impact on the proper
planning of or the amenities in any part of
the industrial development area or the
interests of the general public there. To
achieve the said object, the Authority has
also been given power, inter alia, to
regulate the building activity in the area
by framing regulations. The Regulations
framed
by
the
Authority
interalia,
provides for the manner in which
approval for raising constructions is to be
obtained and empowers the ''Authority' to
remove the same, if made without
obtaining approval.
772 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. On 24.4.2001, by a notification,
the State Government constituted an
Authority in the name of ''Taj Expressway
Development Authority, in exercise of
power under Section 3 of the Act. Eight
revenue villages were notified as ''industrial
development
area',
falling
under
its
jurisdiction.
On
24.8.2001,
another
notification was issued, notifying more
villages as ''industrial development areas'. It
included village Dankaur as well, with
which we are presently concerned in the
instant case. The said notification was
issued under Section 2(d) of the Act. The
result of the same was that the said area
stood excluded from the panchayat area of
Nagar
Panchayat,
Dankaur
and
the
municipal services and building activity in
the said area came to be regulated and
controlled
by
the
Taj
Expressway
Development Authority. On 11th July,
2008, by another notification, the name of
the Authority was changed to Yamuna
Expressway
Industrial
Development
Authority. On 18th December, 2015, by the
notification impugned, the Governor in
exercise of powers under the proviso to
clause (1) of Article 243Q of the
Constitution, specified an area comprising
of eighty villages, which had earlier been
declared as ''industrial development area',
as an ''industrial township' w.e.f. the date of
publication
of
the
notification.
It
superseded the earlier notification dated
30.6.2008.

14. In Rakam Singh (supra), the
notification
dated
14.1.2015
notifying
certain area of a particular Gram Panchayat
as an ''industrial township', was challenged
on the ground that it would have the effect
of dissolving the Gram Panchayat of that
area, a consequence, which is against the
spirit of Part IX of the Constitution, which
contemplates the creation of Panchayats as
institutions
of
self-government.
The
challenge was repelled and it was held as
follows: -

What Article 243-Q (1) does, is
to provide that a Municipality under clause
(1) may not be constituted in respect of an
area which has been specified as an
industrial township having regard to the
size of the area and the municipal services
being provided or proposed to be provided
by
an
industrial
establishment.
An
industrial township is a subset of an urban
area which fulfils the
characteristics
provided by the proviso to Article 243-Q
(1). But for the proviso, a Municipality
would have had to be constituted under the
substantive part of Article 243-Q (1) in
respect of an area which has been specified
as an industrial ownership. An industrial
township, however, is an area in which an
industrial establishment has provided or
proposes to provide municipal services and
which is so specified by the Governor
having regard to the size of the area. Where
an industrial township has been specified,
the
requirement
of
constituting
a
Municipality
stands
lifted.
If
this
constitutional
scheme
providing
for
Panchayats on one hand and Municipalities
on the other is construed so as to effectuate
the purpose and intent of the provisions of
Part IX and Part IX-A, there can be no
ambiguity about the position. Once a
Municipality is constituted in respect of an
area under Article 243-Q (1), it would be
far fetched to contend that nonetheless, the
very same area must necessarily fall within
the jurisdiction of a village Panchayat that
was constituted under Article 243-B. The
whole object of constituting a Municipality
is to provide an institution of local selfgovernment in those areas which have
ceased to be villages within Part-IX and
which do not meet the description of a rural
5 All. Amrita Bharti Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
773
area. The constitution of an industrial
township under the proviso to Article 243Q (1) obviates the necessity of constituting
a Municipality for that area. Once an
industrial
township
is
constituted,
regulation of that township would take
place under the enabling provision of state
legislation governing such a township.

15. The constitutional validity of the
notification dated 18th December, 2015
impugned herein, whereby the village in
question along with other villages had been
notified as ''industrial township', was
specifically in issue in Shri Niwaz (supra).
Also under challenge therein were the
communication issued by the Government
dated 10.9.2016 and 12.9.2016 whereby the
Authorities decided not to hold election of
panchayats
in
villages
notified
as
''industrial development areas'. A Coordinate Bench of this Court of which one
of us (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) was a
member, upheld the constitutional validity
of the notification relying on the judgment
in Rakam Singh (supra) and repelled the
contention
that
provisions
of
the
Constitution had been violated. It was
observed as follows: -

It has been authoritatively held in
Rakam Singh (Supra) that " (i) If the area is
included in a Panchayat area, it would, with
effect from the date of the notification
made under the proviso, stand excluded
from the Panchayat area; (ii) No Panchayat
can be constituted for such an industrial
development area or a part under the Act of
1947 or the Adhiniyam of 1961". The
impugned orders passed by the Special
Secretary dated 10 September 2016 and the
Director,
Panchayat
Raj
dated
12
September 2016 simply clarify the legal
position which emerges on account of the
area being declared as Industrial Township.
Even in the absence of these orders, the
legal consequence flowing out of the
notification dated 18 September 2015 was
inevitable and could not have been avoided
by the petitioners.

The validity of the notification is
therefore no more res-integra, as rightly
pointed out by Sri Manish Goyal, Senior
Advocate, appearing on behalf of the
Authority.

16. As regards challenge advanced to
the notification dated 22.8.2001, the same
was issued by the State Government in
exercise of power under Section 2(d) of the
Act. The vires of Section 2(d) is not in
issue. As seen, the Constitution itself
envisages development of certain areas as
industrial townships and to achieve the said
object, it also envisages a separate
Authority for such area which would
provide municipal services and develop it.
The said object of the Constitution is being
achieved under the enabling provisions of
the State legislation under which initially
notification dated 24.4.2001 was issued,
notifying eight villages as ''industrial
development area'. In sequel to the same,
the impugned notification dated 22.8.2001
was issued. It merely includes some more
areas within the ambit of the industrial
development
area
falling
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Authority.
The
contention that the said notification is
illegal
or
against
the
constitutional
mandate, does not merit acceptance.

17. We also do not find any merit in
the
contention
that
the
impugned
notifications have the effect of bringing in
conflict
the
provisions
of
the
U.P.
Municipalities Act, 1916/U.P. Panchayat
Raj Act, 1947 with that of the U.P.
Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. As
already discussed, the effect of issuance of
774 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the notification under proviso to clause (1)
of Article 243Q of the Constitution is that
the area covered thereunder ceases to be
under the control of the Panchayat or
Municipality, as the case may be, and the
municipal services and building activities
therein gets regulated by the Authority
constituted under the Act. The provisions
of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916/U.P.
Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 ceases to apply.
Consequently, there is no question of any
conflict. In a similar fact situation, the
Supreme Court in Saij Gram Panchayat
vs. State of Gujarat and Others repelled
the contention while considering cognate
provision of the two legislations in the
State of Gujarat. It has been held that the
objective of the two legislations is different
and they operate in different fields and
there is no question of any conflict. It was
observed as follows: -

"16. The contention is based on a
misconception about the relationship of the
provisions of Parts IX and IXA of the
Constitution with any legislation pertaining
to industrial development. The Gujarat
Industrial Development Act operates in a
totally different sphere from Parts IX and
IXA of the Constitution as well as the
Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 and the
Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1962 - the latter
being provisions dealing with local self
Government while the former being an Act
for industrial development, and orderly
establishment
and
organisation
of
industries in a State. The industrial areas
which have been notified under Section 16
of the Gujarat Industrial Development Act
on 7.9.1993 were notified as industrial
areas
under
the
Gujarat
Industrial
Development Act long back in the year
1972. These industrial areas have been
developed
by
the
Gujarat
Industrial
Development Corporation and they can
hardly be looked upon as rural areas
covered by Part IX of the Constitution. It is
only such industrial areas which can be
notified under Section 16 of the Gujarat
Industrial Development Act, 1963. If by a
notification issued under Section 16, these
industrial areas are deemed to be notified
areas under the Gujarat Municipalities Act
and are equated with industrial township
under the proviso to Clause (1) of Article
243-Q, the constitutional scheme is not
violated. In fact, under Chapter 3 of the
Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962,
the
Gujarat
Industrial
Development
Corporation, has been given power, inter
alia, to develop land for the purpose of
facilitating the location of industries and
commercial centers. It has also been given
the power to provide amenities and
common facilities in such areas including
provision of roads, lighting, water supply,
drainage facilities and so on. It may do this
either jointly with Government or local
authorities or on an agency basis in
furtherance of the purposes for which the
corporation is established. The industrial
area thus has separate provision for
municipal services being provided by the
Industrial Development Corporation. Once
such an area is a deemed notified area
under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1964,
it is equated with an industrial township
under Part IXA of the Constitution, where
municipal services may be provided by
industries. We do not see any violation of a
constitutional provision in this scheme."

(emphasis supplied)

18. A feeble attempt was made to
challenge
the
said
notification
by
contending that the provision of the Act
shall also come in conflict with the U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 1901, but without
specifying how it would be so. It is
pertinent to note that the U.P. Land
5 All. PPS International Vs. Union of India & Ors.
775
Revenue Act, 1901 deals with land revenue
and the jurisdiction of Revenue Officers in
the State. The Act does not regulate
building activity. The Revenue Authorities
are not concerned with planning or
development. The contention is thus devoid
of merit.

19. Counsel for the petitioner
contended that Section 10 of the Act
imposes unreasonable restriction on the
right of a person to raise constructions over
his land. According to him, it is violative of
Articles 14, 21 and 31A of the Constitution.
The contention does not appear to have any
force. Section 10 is not a permanent clog
on right of any person to raise construction
in areas falling under the jurisdiction of the
Authority constituted under the Act. The
construction activity only gets regulated by
the regulatory steps that are taken by the
Authority to ensure proper planning of the
area so that it does not predudicially affect
the industrial development or interests of
the general public there. The Regulations
framed by the Authority in exercise of its
power under Section 19 of the Act contains
specific provisions as regards the manner in
which permission for raising construction
could be obtained. It does not ban the
development or construction activity, but is
only a power to regulate.

20. Article 31A is not at all attracted
to the facts of the instant case. The
contention that the impugned notification
has the effect of acquiring the land of the
petitioner without paying compensation,
does not merit acceptance, inasmuch as, the
impugned notification issued under Article
243-Q, notifying ''industrial township' and
the limits of the lands included therein,
does not have the effect of acquiring such
lands or any building or structure standing
over it, but only subjects the same to the
regulatory measures prescribed by the
Authority to achieve the objective of
planned development of the area.

21. Concededly, the petitioner had
raised constructions without obtaining
previous approval of the Authority. The
impugned order specifically records that
the constructions raised were prejudicially
affecting the planned development of the
area. These findings of fact are not under
challenge. Consequently, we find no merit
in the writ petition.

22. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 775
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

Writ-C No. 38168 of 2018

PPS International ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, Sri Fuzail Ahmad
Ansari, Sri N. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Sri Navin
Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, Sri Sudarshan Singh

(A) Civil Law - The Competition Act, 2002 -
Sections 3, 3 (3) (a), 4 (2) (a) (i) , 4 (2)
(a) (ii) 4, 19 (1) (b), 26(2) & 53 (1) & (2) -
power of High Courts to exercise judicial
superintendence over court and tribunal
decisions is part of the Constitution's basic