# Brijmohan Tanwar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1870
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-13
- **Case number:** J. Writ -C No. 5761 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brijmohan-tanwar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51572
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-U.P.
Urban
Planning
and
Development
Act,
1973-Unauthorized
construction-Urban
developmentcompliance
with
Sanctioned
PlansPetitioner's grievance is that the private
respondents are building beyond the
sanctioned
map,
causing
damage
to
petitioner's property-The court observed
that
the
private
respondents
had
exceeded the permissible construction
area under the approved plan, and the
development
authority's
decision
to
permit
compounding
undermines
the
purpose of urban planning laws-The court
criticized this practice, emphasizing that
compounding
must
not
facilitate
relaxation
of
building
norms,
as
it
encourages
illegal
constructions
and
disrupts
planned
developmentdevelopment authorities must prevent
construction
beyond
approved
plansAssessment of damages caused to the
petitioner's
property
must
be
undertaken.(Para 1 to 8)

The writ petition is disposed of.(E-6)

## Text

1870 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applied
for
conversion
so
far,
no
application has been moved to police
authority for protection of their live-inrelationship. No information is given to the
higher authorities or to any Magistrate that
the petitioners are being tortured and
detained by police at the behest of the
mother of petitioner No.1. Till date, no
F.I.R. has been lodged by the parents of any
of the petitioner, therefore, there is no
challenge to the relationship of petitioners.
No application is moved to S.S.P. for
protection of their lives or liberty, therefore,
there is no cause of action for petitioner to
seek protection against respondent No. 4.

21. In view of the discussions as
above, it is not considered desirable that
live-in-relationship of the petitioners be
protected in contravention of the statutory
provisions of law passed by legislature,
hence, petition has no force and is liable to
be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1870
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI,
J.

Writ -C No. 5761 of 2024

Brijmohan Tanwar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anil Kant Tripathi, Sri Praveen Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, Sri Ravi
Prakash Pandey
Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-U.P.
Urban
Planning
and
Development
Act,
1973-Unauthorized
construction-Urban
developmentcompliance
with
Sanctioned
PlansPetitioner's grievance is that the private
respondents are building beyond the
sanctioned
map,
causing
damage
to
petitioner's property-The court observed
that
the
private
respondents
had
exceeded the permissible construction
area under the approved plan, and the
development
authority's
decision
to
permit
compounding
undermines
the
purpose of urban planning laws-The court
criticized this practice, emphasizing that
compounding
must
not
facilitate
relaxation
of
building
norms,
as
it
encourages
illegal
constructions
and
disrupts
planned
developmentdevelopment authorities must prevent
construction
beyond
approved
plansAssessment of damages caused to the
petitioner's
property
must
be
undertaken.(Para 1 to 8)

The writ petition is disposed of.(E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J & Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan
Rizvi, J.)

1. A grievance is raised in the present
petition
that
constructions
are
being
allowed by the development authority
contrary to the sanction plan on account of
which petitioner's adjoining constructions
are getting damaged. Taking note of such
contention, we passed following orders on
26.2.2024:-

"1. Grievance of the petitioner is
that
private
respondents
are
raising
construction contrary to the sanctioned
map on account of which petitioner's
construction, on the adjoining, is getting
damaged.
3 All. Brijmohan Tanwar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1871

2. Learned counsel for the
Development Authority is directed to obtain
instructions in the matter.

3. Let notices be also issued to
fifth respondent by registered speed post for
which appropriate steps shall be taken
within 24 hours, fixing 13th March, 2024
as the date in the matter.

4.
List
again
as fresh
on
13.03.2024.

5. In the meantime, the Development
Authority shall ensure that no constructions
contrary to sanctioned map are allowed to
be raised."

2. Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi,
learned counsel representing development
authority states that though constructions
are being raised by the private respondents
over and above the area for which map has
been sanctioned but such constructions are
within the compoundable limits. Written
instructions are produced as per which the
private respondent has been given an
opportunity to apply for compounding.

3. Urban areas are required to be
developed in accordance with the plan. It is
with this object that U.P. Urban Planning
and Development Act, 1973 has been
enacted. The authorities have also framed
building
bye-laws
which
permits
constructions on specified area only after
getting the plan approved. In the present
case also the private respondent has in fact
got a map approved. In case constructions
are raised as per it, there can hardly be any
objection. In this case also the private
respondent has secured sanction of a
residential construction and in the event
such constructions are undertaken, there
can be no objection. However, it transpires
that constructions are being raised by the
private respondent in excess of construction
allowed as per the approved plan. The
authority instead of allowing constructions
to be raised strictly as per the approved
plan is permitting the private respondent to
raise additional constructions on the ground
that such additional constructions are
compoundable.

4. Building bye-laws and plans are
supposed to be followed scrupulously so
that urban development is allowed in a
planned
manner.
What
is,
however,
disturbing is the practice of allowing
constructions in excess of approved plan
and thereafter entertaining compounding
plans, ostensibly with the purpose of
augmenting the financial interest of the
development authority. The object of
establishment of development authority is
planned development and not to allow
illegal
constructions
and
thereafter
compound illegal constructions by charging
huge money. Organized nexus appears to
be operating in the development authorities
where the builders, in collusion with other
elements collude for raising constructions
contrary to the building plan.

5. We can appreciate the rationale for
allowing
compounding
where
prior
sanction is not obtained for various reasons.
The
authority,
however,
while
compounding the plan must not allow
constructions
over
and
above
the
permissible constructions in the building
bye-laws. In the event authority eases the
norms of permissible constructions as per
the building bye-laws, while compounding
the plan, it allows not only curing the
illegality
but
also
encourage
illegal
constructions which would violate the
object of planned development. An honest
person who gets his building plan approved
as per the building bye-laws would be
allowed to raise constructions over a lesser
area, while the one who violates the law by
1872 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
raising illegal constructions is allowed to
raise additional constructions in the garb of
compounding, by paying additional money,
to the
authority. While
development
authority benefits in the form of additional
revenue
from
compounding
the
unscrupulous elements operating in the
field also benefit. Everyone wins at the cost
of planned development.

6. Question arises thus as to whether
the development authorities are established
to secure planned development or are to
facilitate large scale violation of building
bye-laws in the name of compounding. In
the facts of the present case also we find
from the instructions that though the
authority has been made aware that
constructions are being raised contrary to
the building plan and in excess of the
permissible area over which constructions
are allowed in the building plan but instead
of ensuring that constructions are restricted
only in accordance with the approved plan,
the authority is facilitating compounding by
calling upon the private respondents to get
such illegality regularized. This approach
of the development authority has to be
discouraged.

7. The development authority has
been
constituted
to
ensure
that
constructions are allowed to be raised
strictly as per the plan. The foremost
endeavor has to be ensure that no
constructions contrary to the plan are
allowed.
The
practice
of
allowing
deviations and then facilitating such
departures from the norms by getting the
maps compounded must stop.

8. In the facts of the present case, we
call upon the respondents to ensure that no
constructions in excess of the sanction plan
is allowed to be raised on the spot. The
State Government is also directed to issue
immediate directions to all development
authorities to ensure that no constructions
are allowed to be raised over and above the
permissible
constructions
as
per
the
building bye-laws. We may also specify
that the norms for constructions as per the
building bye-laws must not be relaxed in
cases of compounding, inasmuch as the
compounding can only be to facilitate expost facto approval of plan, but while doing
so, the building norms cannot be relaxed.
What is not permissible under the building
bye-laws should not be allowed by way of
compounding. The Principle Secretary of
the Department of Housing shall, therefore,
file his personal affidavit in compliance of
the above directions. The Vice-Chairman
shall ensure that no constructions on the
plot is allowed to be raised except in
accordance with the sanction plan. The
authority shall also make an assessment of
the damage which apparently has been
caused to the petitioner's construction on
account of deviations allowed while raising
constructions by the private respondents.

9. List as fresh on 8.4.2024.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1872
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ-C No. 6049 of 2023
alongwith other connected cases

Anshuman Singh Rathore ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. Ors. ...Opp. Parties