# M/s Tanya Marketing Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1964
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-06
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 13146 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-tanya-marketing-pvt-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51595
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-U.P.
Urban
Planning
and
Development Act,1973-Sections 41(3) &
27(1)-The petitioner is engaged in the
business of meat processing-his meat
processing plant located on agricultural
land received a conditional No Objection
Certificate in 2013 from the District
Magistrate
Meerut-the
petitioner
constructed the plant without obtaining
the necessary approvals or addressing
objections raised by the Development
Authority-The road leading to the plant
did not meet the minimum 24 meter width
required under bye-law 2.3.2 for industrial
establishments located more than 400
meters from the main highway-The court
held that the petitioner failed to comply
with the legal requirements including
prior approval of the map and adherence
to bye laws concerning road width-the
actions of the development authority and
the state government found to be lawful
and justified.(Para 1 to 52)

The writ petition is dismissed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,900 of 42,047. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39900 for what follows._

1964 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. With the above direction, the writ
petition is allowed.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1964
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 13146 of 2022

M/s Tanya Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ali Jamal Khan, Smt. Mamta Singh, Sri
Mukesh Chandra Gupta, Sri Shubham Prakash
Gupta, Sri Rakesh Pande (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Jagannath Maurya, Sri Shiv Prakash Gupta

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-U.P.
Urban
Planning
and
Development Act,1973-Sections 41(3) &
27(1)-The petitioner is engaged in the
business of meat processing-his meat
processing plant located on agricultural
land received a conditional No Objection
Certificate in 2013 from the District
Magistrate
Meerut-the
petitioner
constructed the plant without obtaining
the necessary approvals or addressing
objections raised by the Development
Authority-The road leading to the plant
did not meet the minimum 24 meter width
required under bye-law 2.3.2 for industrial
establishments located more than 400
meters from the main highway-The court
held that the petitioner failed to comply
with the legal requirements including
prior approval of the map and adherence
to bye laws concerning road width-the
actions of the development authority and
the state government found to be lawful
and justified.(Para 1 to 52)

The writ petition is dismissed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Nazir Ahmad Vs King-Fmperor AIR 1936 PC
253

2. Dhananjaya Reddy Vs St.of Kar.(2001) 4 SCC
9

3. Commr. of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs Anjum
M.H. Ghaswala (2002) 1 SCC 633

4. St. of Jhar. & ors. Vs Ambay Cements & anr.
(2005) 1 SCC 368,

5. Priyanka Estates International Pvt. Ltd. &
ors.. Vs St. of Assam & ors., JT (2009)14 SC 654

6. Shanti Sports Club & anr..Vs U.O.I. & ors.
(2009) 15 SCC 705

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan
Agarwal, J.)

1. Through this writ petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated
28.03.2022 passed by respondent no. 1
under Section 41(3) of U.P. Urban Planning
and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter
referred as "the Act of 1973") and order
dated
06.03.2021
passed
by
Meerut
Development
Authority
(hereinafter
referred as "the Authority") exercising
power under Section 27(1) of the Act of
1973. The prayer has also been made for
directing
the
respondent-Development
Authority to remove the seal from the
petitioner's firm.

2. Facts leading to the present
case, are that petitioner is engaged in the
business of meat processing, after obtaining
license from Agriculture and Processed
Food
Product
Export
Development
3 All. M/s Tanya Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1965
Authority, Delhi (APEDA). The
factory of the petitioner is situated at
Khasra No. 81, 82, 70, 55A, 55B, 56A,
56B, 57, 59 and 60, Alipur, Jijwana, Hapur
Road, Meerut. It is also registered under the
Food Safety and Standards Authority of
India (FSSAI).

3. It had sought a No Objection
Certificate from District Magistrate, Meerut
in the year 2013 for establishing an
integrated meat processing plant and
slaughtering house on the aforesaid khasra
number. On 06.06.2013, conditional No
Objection Certificate was granted, wherein
it was provided under Clause 12 to seek
permission from Development Authority in
regard to construction of building. The
condition further provided that permission
from Pollution Control Board, Lucknow
was also required before establishing the
integrated meat plant.

4. The petitioner without approval
of sanction of map by the Authority had
constructed the plant, pursuant to which a
notice dated 27.03.2017 under Section
27(1)
was
issued.
Immediately,
on
30.03.2017, the petitioner moved an
application
for
compounding
of
construction of factory raised on Khasra
Nos. 81 and 83. Certain objections were
raised by the Authority on 12.09.2017.
Since the objections were not removed, the
Authority
rejected
the
compounding
application on 19.01.2018. Thereafter,
petitioner again on 12.01.2019 moved
another application for reconsideration of
sanction of map and compounding the
construction raised by him. The application
was rejected on 11.02.2019 for not
removing the objections. The Enforcement
Officer of the Authority passed an order on
25.02.2019 to seal the premises, and on
27.04.2019, the premises was sealed.

5. Petitioner challenged both order
dated 11.02.2019 and 25.02.2019 through
an appeal before Commissioner, Meerut
Division, Meerut. On 01.07.2019, the
Commissioner directed the Authority to
decide the matter afresh after making
verification, but refused to interfere in the
sealing
order
of the
premises. The
petitioner filed a revision under Section
41(3) before State Authority, which was
decided
by
order
dated
31.10.2019
requiring
the
Commissioner,
Meerut
Division, Meerut to decide the appeal
afresh.

6. The appeal was reheard, and on
20.01.2020 the order dated 11.02.2019 was
set aside and the Authority was directed to
decide the matter regarding sealing of
petitioner's premises. Pursuant to said
order, Authority issued notice to petitioner
on 15.02.2020 and on 03.07.2020 to
remove the objections raised by Authority
on
compounding
application.
Simultaneously, a letter was sent on
11.09.2020 to Chief Town and Country
Planner seeking instructions with regard to
width of the road as provided under Para
2.3
of
Building
Construction
and
Development
Bye-law,
2008.
On
14.10.2020, Chief Town and Country
Planner provided the guidelines. According
to which, non residential and commercial
area where the land is put to industrial use,
the width of the road must be at least 12
meter wide whose length is 200 meter. In
case length of road is between 201 and 400
meter, the width should be 18 meter, and in
case of length of road from 401 meter to
1000 meter, the width should be 24 meter.
While those roads whose length is more
1966 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
than 1000 meter, the width should be 30
meter.

7. In the meantime, petitioner filed
Writ Petition No. 14410 of 2020, wherein
an interim order was passed on 17.12.2020
and
sealing
order
was
stayed. The
Authority complying the order passed an
order on 28.12.2020 desealing the premises
in question.

8. On 01.02.2020, petitioner had
again
moved
an
application
for
compounding and sanction of map of
construction raised over Khasra No. 55A,
55B, 56A, 56B, 57, 59, 60, 70, 81 and 82.
As the industrial activity was being carried
in agricultural area, the Committee under
Zonal Regulations submitted its report on
11.11.2020 and recommended not to
compound the map. The report of the
Committee was approved by Meerut
Development Authority Board in its 116th
meeting on 09.02.2021.

9. The Vice-Chairman of the
Authority on 06.03.2021 rejected the
application for compounding in light of the
report of the Committee and approval of
the same by the Board. Pursuant to order of
Vice-Chairman, authorised officer of the
Authority on 08.03.2021 again passed an
order for sealing of premises and on
09.03.2021, the factory premises was
sealed by the Authority. Against the order
of sealing as well as order dated
06.03.2021, petitioner preferred a revision
under
Section
41(3)
before
State
Government which was rejected by order
impugned dated 28.03.2022. Hence, this
writ petition.

10. Sri Rakesh Pande, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that along with application for
compounding and sanction of map a total
of Rs.45 lacs has already been deposited by
petitioner but the Authorities have not
considered the said fact and simply on
extraneous consideration proceeded to
reject the application for compounding and
sanction of map. According to him, meat
processing plant came into existence
subsequent to No Objection Certificate
having been issued by District Magistrate,
Meerut in the year 2013. The plant is
situated 500 meter away from the main
Hapur Road. According to him, the
Committee in its report had found that there
was no uniform width of the road and it
ranged from 8.5 meter to 14 meter while
the minimum standard prescribed width is
12 meter.

11. He then contended that there is
no coherence in the report of Chief Town
and Country Planner and the decision taken
by the Committee as well as the order
passed
by
Vice-Chairman,
Meerut
Development Authority on 06.03.2021
regarding the width of road on which the
integrated meat processing plant is situated
and the minimum required standard. He has
tried to point out the discrepancy in the
various reports and orders of the Authority,
Chief Town and Country Planner and
Committee. He lastly contended that
closing down the project would create
financial hardship to petitioner and will
render several people jobless who are
employed in the factory.

12. Sri J.N. Maurya, learned
counsel
appearing
for
the Authority
submitted that the very No Objection
Certificate granted by District Magistrate,
Meerut on 06.06.2013 enumerated various
conditions to be fulfilled before setting up
of the integrated meat processing plant and
slaughtering house. One of the essential
3 All. M/s Tanya Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1967
conditions given in Para No. 12 was
sanction of map and permission by
Development Authority before plant starts.
According to him, neither any application
was made for sanction of map nor
permission was sought before starting the
commercial
production.
It
was
on
27.03.2017 that notice under Section 27(1)
was issued, pursuant to which the petitioner
had submitted a compounding application,
on which the Authority had raised certain
objections
which
were
not
fulfilled/complied by petitioner leading to
rejection
of
application
for
compounding/sanctioning of map. Till date,
the petitioner has not complied the
objections which has led to rejection of
compounding application twice as well as
the revision by State authorities. Further,
the Development Authority is ready to
refund Rs.45 lacs submitted by petitioner.

13. He then contended that as per
the
Zonal
Regulations
of Authority,
industrial activity in agricultural areas is
permissible with special permission of the
Board. Admittedly, petitioner's unit for
meat
processing
is
situated
in
an
agricultural area, therefore, as per Zonal
Regulations, the matter was required to be
scrutinized by the Committee under Zonal
Regulations. The matter was referred to the
Committee
so
constituted,
and
after
examining in the light of the provisions, it
submitted its report on 11.11.2020 and
recommended not to compound the map in
view of fact that plant was situated on a 12
meter wide road which is 500 meter away
from the main Hapur Highway, and as per
the requirement, the width has to be 24
meter.

14. He has relied upon Para No.
2.3.2
of
Building
Construction
and
Development Bye-law, 2008 (as amended
in 2011 and 2016) of Meerut Development
Authority, wherein the width of road is
provided in case of non residential and
commercial area, which is used for
industrial purpose. The said provision
provides width of road at 24 meter in case
it is 401 to 1000 meter in length. In the
instant case, the plant is situated 500 meter
away from the main highway, thus, the
required width of the road is 24 meter for
starting a commercial activity.

15. I have heard respective counsel
for the parties and perused the material on
record.

16. The short question which
arises for consideration of this Court is as
to whether the Authority and the State
Government was justified in rejecting the
application
for
compounding
and
sanctioning of map post granting of No
Objection
Certificate
by
District
Magistrate, Meerut in the year 2013 for
setting up integrated meat processing plant
and
slaughtering
house
with
certain
conditions.

17. It is an admitted case to both
the parties that petitioner had applied for
No Objection Certificate from District
Magistrate for setting up an integrated meat
processing plant and a slaughtering house
on Khasra No. 81, 82, 70, 55A, 55B, 56A,
56B, 57, 59 and 60 situated at VillageAlipur, Jijwana, Hapur Road, DistrictMeerut.

18. The grant of No Objection
Certificate was conditional, subject to
fulfilling 12 conditions laid down in the No
Objection Certificate dated 06.06.2013.
Condition No. 2 relates to the permission
from U.P. Pollution Control Board which
was necessary prior to production being
1968 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
started in the factory. Condition No. 12
clearly
provided
that
before
starting
construction, permission of Development
Authority was required and the procedures
for building construction was compulsorily
required
to
be
followed.
Relevant
Conditions
2
&12
are
extracted
hereasunder:-

"2- उद्योग इकाई में परीक्षण / उत्पािन िब िक
प्रारम्भ नहीं वकया जायेगा जब िक वक वह उिर प्रिेर्श प्रिूर्ण
वनयांत्रण बोडा, लखनऊ से जल एवां वायु प्रिूर्ण के अविवनयमों के
अन्िगाि सहमवि प्राप्त न कर लें। जल एवां वायु की सहमवि प्राप्त
करने हेिु इकाई में उत्पािन प्रारम्भ करने की विवथ से, कम से कम 2
माह पहले वनिााररि सहमवि आवेिन पत्र उत्पािन पूवा प्रथम आवेिन
का उजलेख करिे हुए इस कायाालय में अवश्य जमा कर विये जायें।
यवि उिोग उपरोक्ि का अनुपालन नहीं करिा है िो उक्त अविवनयम
के वैिावनक प्रावविानों के अन्िगाि उद्योग के ववरुद्ध वबना वकसी
सूचना के ववविक् कायावाही की जा सकिी है।
12- वनमााण काया प्रारम्भ होने से पूवा ववकास
प्राविकरण की अनुमवि प्राप्त की जाये एवां भवन वनमााण के सम्बन्ि
में अन्य वनयमों / र्शासनािेर्शों का फमा द्वारा अनुपालन वकया जाना
आवश्यक होगा।"

19. The petitioner had established
the meat processing plant and raised
construction without any sanction of map
by the Authority, resulting in notice issued
by the Authority under Section 27(1) of the
Act of 1973 on 27.03.2017. Compounding
application filed on 30.03.2017 was not
processed as certain objections were raised
by the Authority on 12.09.2017, which
remained unattended by petitioner resulting
in the rejection of the application on
19.01.2018. Thereafter, second application
was moved for the same cause of
compounding the offence by petitioner
which had again resulted in the rejection on
11.02.2019 which had led to the various
challenge
by
petitioner
before
Commissioner through an appeal, before
this Court through writ petition and before
State Government in revision under Section
41(3) of the Act of 1973. In all the
proceedings, the Authorities found that
illegal construction raised by petitioner
could not be compounded as per the byelaws of Meerut Development Authority.

20. Master Plan, 2021 for Meerut
was approved by State Government on 13th
October, 2006 and was published and came
into effect from 23rd October, 2006. The
Master Plan, 2021 provides for the land
used in zones for different activities. Under
the category "public use", slaughter house
has been mentioned at 6.6 wherein land
falling under agricultural area, special
permission has to be taken before its use.

21. Once a master plan has been
finalised and implemented, it cannot be
changed by any Authority exercising
discretion for the reason that procedure for
change of master plan is envisaged in the
statute which needs to be followed and is
mandatory.

22. Reference to certain provisions
of the Act of 1973 is necessary for better
appreciation of the case. The Act of 1973
gives due importance to master plan and
zonal development plan. Section 8 and 9
are of great importance as they provide for
master plan for development area and zonal
development plan, which are extracted
hereasunder:-

"8. Civil survey of, and master
plan for the development area. - (1) The
Authority shall, as soon as may be, prepare
a master plan for the development area.
(2) The master plan shall -
(a) define the various zones into
which the development area may be divided
for the purposes of development and
indicate the manner in which the land in
each zone is proposed to be used (whether
3 All. M/s Tanya Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1969
by the carrying out thereon of development
or otherwise) and the stages by which any
such development shall be carried out; and
(b) serve as a basic pattern of
framework
within
which
the
Zonal.
development plans of the various zones
may be prepared.
(3) The master plan may provide
for any other matter which may be
necessary for the proper development of the
development area.
9. Zonal Development plans. - (1)
Simultaneously with the preparation of the
master plan or as soon as may be
thereafter, the Authority shall proceed with
the preparation of a zonal development"
plan for each of the zones into which the
development area may be divided.
(2) A zonal development plan may-
(a) contain a site-plan and use-plan
for the development of the zone and show
the approximate locations and extents of
land uses proposed in the zone for such
things as public buildings and other public
works
and
utilities,
roads,
housing,
recreation, industry, business, markets,
schools, hospitals and public and private
open spaces and other categories of public
and private uses;
(b)
specify
the
standards
of
population density and building density;
(c) show every area in the zone
which may, in the opinion of the Authority,
be required or declared for development or
re-development; and
(d)
In
particular,
contain,
provisions regarding all or any of the
following matters, namely-
(i) the division of any site Into plots
for the erection of buildings;

(ii) the allotment or reservation of
land for roads, open spaces, gardens,
recreation-grounds, schools, markets and
other public purposes:
(iii) the development of any area
Into a township or colony and the
restrictions and conditions subject to which
such development may be undertaken or
carried out,
(iv) the erection of buildings on any
site and the restrictions and conditions in
regard to the open spaces to be maintained
in or around buildings and height and
character of buildings:
(v) the alignment of buildings of
any site;
(vi) the architectural features of the
elevation or frontage of any building to be
erected on any site,
(vii) the number of residential
buildings which may be erected on plot or
site;
(viii) the amenities to be provided
in relation to any site or buildings on such
site whether before or after the erection of
buildings and the person or authority by
whom or at whose expense such amenities
are to be provided:
(ix)the prohibitions or restrictions
regarding erection of shops. work-shops,
warehouses of factories or buildings of a
specified architectural feature or buildings
designed for particular purposes in the
locality,
(x) the maintenance of walls,
fences, hedges or any other structural or
architectural construction and the height at
which they shall be maintained:
(xi) the restrictions regarding the
use of any site for purposes other than
erection of buildings;
(xii) any other matter which is
necessary for the proper development of the
zone or any area thereof according to plan
and for presenting buildings being erected
haphazardly, in such zone or area."

23. Section 10, 11 and 12 are of
great relevance as they provide for
1970 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submission of plan to State Government for
approval, and the procedure to be followed
in preparation and approval of plan, further
the date of commencement of plan. Master
Plan, 2021 has already been implemented
in the city of Meerut since the year 2006.

24. Chapter IV of the Act of 1973
provides for amendment of master plan and
zonal development plan. Section 13 is of
great importance as it provides amendment
of plan, which reads as under:-

"13. Amendment of Plan. - (1)
The Authority may make any amendments
in the master plan or the zonal development
plan as it thinks fit, being amendments
which, in its opinion do not effect important
alteration in the character of the plan and
which do not relate to the extent of land
uses or the standards of population density.
(2) The State Government may
make amendments in the master plan or the
zonal development plan whether such
amendments are of the nature specified in
Sub-section (1) or otherwise.
(3) Before making any amendments
in the plan, the Authority, or as the case
may be, the State Government shall publish
a notice in at least one newspaper having
circulation in the development area inviting
objections and suggestions from any person
with respect to the proposed amendments
before such date as may be specified in the
notice and shall consider all objections and
suggestions that may be received by the
Authority or the State Government.

(4) Every amendment made under
this section shall be published in such
manner as the Authority or the State
Government, as the case may be, may
specify, and the amendments shall come
into operation either on the date of the first
publication or on such, other date as the
Authority or the State Government, as the
case, may be, may fix.
(5) When the Authority makes any
amendments in the plan under Sub- section
(1) it shall report to the State Government
the full particulars of such amendments
within thirty days of the date on which such
amendments come into operations.
(6) If any question arises whether
the amendments proposed to be made by
the authority are amendments which effect
important alterations In the character of
the plan or whether they relate to the extent
of land-uses or, the standards of population
density, it shall be referred to the State
Government whose decision, thereon shall
be final.
(7)Any reference in any other
Chapter, except Chapter III, to the master
plan or the zonal Development plan shall
be construed as a reference to the master
plan or the zonal development plan as
amended under this section."

25. Section 16 puts an embargo on
the use or permit to be used of any building
or land in a planned area otherwise than in
confirmity with such plan. The proviso
however provides that in case on the date
of enforcement of plan, the land or building
was used in any other manner, the same
would continue subject to terms and
conditions as may be prescribed by the byelaws. Section 16 is extracted hereasunder:-

"16. Uses of land and buildings in
contravention of plans. - After the coming
into operation of any of the plans in a zone
no person shall use or permit to be used
any land or building in that zone otherwise
that in conformity with such plan :
Provided that, it shall be lawful to
continue to use, upon such terms and
conditions, as may be prescribed by byelaws made in that behalf, any land or
3 All. M/s Tanya Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1971
building for the purposes and to the extent
for and to which it is being used upon the
date on which such plan comes into force"

26. The No Objection Certificate
granted by Collector on 06.06.2013 was
conditional that integrated meat processing
plant and slaughter house to come up
pursuant to sanction/permission by the
Authority. Neither any permission was
sought nor map was sanctioned.

27. Section 26 talks of the
penalties to be imposed by the Authority in
case of use of land or building, in violation
of plan, and where development of land has
been allowed to any person or body in
violation
of
the
condition
of
such
development plan, such infraction is an
offence punishable under this provision.

28. Section 27 talks for order of
demolition
of
building,
where
any
development has been commenced or is
being carried on or has been completed in
contravention of the Master Plan or without
permission approval or sanction referred to
in Section 14, subject to procedure laid, an
order for demolition shall be passed.

29. The offences under the Act of
1973 are compoundable under Section 32
which reads as under:-

"32. Composition of Offences. -
(1) Any offence made punishable by or
under this Act, may either before or after
the
institution
of
proceedings,
be
compounded-by the [Vice-Chairman (or
any officer authorised by him in that behalf
by General or Special order)] on such
terms, including any term as regards
payment of a composition fee, as [the ViceChairman] (or such officer) may think fit.
(2) Where an offence has been
compounded, the offender, if in custody,
shall be discharged and no further
proceedings shall be taken against him in
respect of the offence compounded.

30. Thus, the question which arises
that once the master plan and the zonal plan
has been enforced in the District-Meerut
and there being no challenge to the same,
the petitioner was required to follow the
norms as provided under them.

31. The integrated meat processing
plant and slaughter house was sought to be
established pursuant to permission granted
by District Magistrate on 06.06.2013 which
was subject to fulfillment of certain
conditions. One of the necessary condition
was prior approval of the Development
Authority in regard to sanction of map
before project started. The words, "वनमााण काया
प्रारम्भ होने से पूवा ववकास प्राविकरण की अनुमवि प्राप्त की जाये"
are of great relevance. The petitioner was
bound to make application for permission
and sanction of map prior to starting the
construction over the land on which the
integrated meat processing plant was going
to come up. No such application or
permission was sought before raising
construction, and it was only when the
factory was operational and notice under
Section 27(1) was issued, that the petitioner
tried to get the offence compounded under
Section 32 of the Act of 1973.

32. Master Plan, 2021 clearly
provides in clause 6.6 that slaughter house
can come up in an agricultural area only on
a
special
permission
granted
by
Development Authority.

33. Bye-law 2.3.2 lays down the
width of the road for the land used in non
residential area where the commercial
1972 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
activity is carried out. It clearly provides
that width of the road must be minimum 12
meter in case of its length upto 200 meter,
in case of a commercial establishment
situated on the road whose length is 201
meter to 400 meter, its width has to be 18
meter. While in case of road whose length
is 401 meter to 1000 meter, the width is to
be 24 meter. Relevant bye-law is extracted
here-asunder:-

"(i) अनावासीय क्षेत्र यथा व्यवसावयक, कायाालय एवां
औद्योवगक भू-उपयोग में वकसी भी सड़क की चौड़ाई 12 मीटर से
कम नहीं होगी, वजसकी लम्बाई अविकिम 200 मीटर होगी।
201 से 400 मीटर लम्बी सड़क की चौड़ाई 18 मीटर होगी और
401 से 1000 मीटर िक लम्बी सड़क की चौड़ाई 24 मीटर
होगी िथा 1000 मीटर से अविक लम्बी सड़क की चौड़ाई 30
मीटर होगी।
(ii) अन्य मागों की चौड़ाई महायोजना / जोनल प्लान
में वनिााररि चौड़ाई के अनुसार होगी।"

34. The very purpose of providing
minimum width of the road for commercial
activity is keeping in mind the movement
of heavy commercial vehicles. In the
instant case, it is admitted that meat
processing plant is situated 500 meter away
from main Hapur Highway and comes
under the category of 401 to 1000 meter.
Thus, minimum width of the road should
be 24 meter before the permission is
accorded.

35. In Nazir Ahmad Vs. KingEmperor AIR 1936 PC 253, Lord Roche
speaking for himself and the other
Members held that where a power is given
to do a certain thing in a certain way the
thing must be done in that way or not at all.
The other methods of performance are
necessarily forbidden.

36. In Dhananjaya Reddy Vs.
State of Karnataka (2001) 4 SCC 9, the
Apex Court held that it is a settled principle
of law that where a power is given to do a
certain thing in a certain manner, the thing
must be done in that way or not at all.

37. In Commissioner of Income
Tax, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala
(2002) 1 SCC 633, the Apex Court held
that it is a normal rule of construction that
when a statute vests certain power in an
authority to be exercised in a particular
manner then the said Authority has to
exercise it only in the manner provided in
the statute itself.

38. In State of Jharkhand &
others Vs. Ambay Cements & another
(2005) 1 SCC 368, the Apex Court held
that whenever the Statute prescribes that a
particular act is to be done in a particular
manner and also lays down the failure to
comply with the said requirement leads to
severe consequence, such requirement
would be mandatory. It is a cardinal rule of
interpretation that where a statute provides
that a particular thing should be done, it
should be done in the manner prescribed
and not in any other way. It is also settled
rule of interpretation that where a statute is
penal in character it must be strictly
construed and followed.

39.

In
Priyanka
Estates
International Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs.
State of Assam and others, JT 2009 (14)
SC 654, the Apex Court while dealing with
violation of sanction or approved plan held
that if the offence was not compoundable
then necessary consequence of demolition
should follow. Relevant para 66 and 73 are
extracted hereasunder:-

"66. It is not necessary to deal with
the aforesaid judgments of this Court in
greater detail as the consistent ratio
3 All. M/s Tanya Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1973
decidendi of this Court is that if the
constructions are in absolute violation of
sanctioned or approved plans and are not
likely
to
fall
in
the
category
of
compoundable items, then the necessary
consequence is to order its demolition and
seal of approval for such illegal activities is
not required to be given by this Court.
73. It is a matter of common
knowledge that illegal and unauthorised
constructions beyond the sanctioned plans
are on rise, may be due to paucity of land
in big cities. Such activities are required to
be dealt with by firm hands otherwise
builders/colonisers would continue to build
or construct beyond the sanctioned and
approved plans and would still go scot-free.
Ultimately, it is the flat owners who fall
prey to such activities as the ultimate desire
of a common man is to have a shelter of his
own. Such unlawful constructions are
definitely against the public interest and
hazardous to the safety of occupiers and
residents of multi-storeyed buildings. To
some extent both parties can be said to be
equally responsible for this. Still the
greater loss would be of those flat owners
whose flats are to be demolished as
compared to the Builder."

40. In Shanti Sports Club and
Anr. Vs. Union of India and others,
(2009) 15 SCC 705, the Apex Court while
dealing with unauthorised construction
which was against the master plan or zonal
development plan held as under:-

"74. In the last four decades,
almost all cities, big or small, have seen
unplanned growth. In the 21st century, the
menace
of
illegal
and
unauthorised
constructions
and
encroachments
has
acquired
monstrous
proportions
and
everyone has been paying heavy price for
the same. Economically affluent people and
those having support of the political and
executive apparatus of the State have
constructed
buildings,
commercial
complexes, multiplexes, malls, etc. in
blatant violation of the municipal and town
planning
laws,
master
plans,
zonal
development plans and even the sanctioned
building plans. In most of the cases of
illegal or unauthorised constructions, the
officers of the municipal and other
regulatory bodies turn blind eye either due
to the influence of higher functionaries of
the State or other extraneous reasons.
Those who construct buildings in violation
of the relevant statutory provisions, master
plan, etc. and those who directly or
indirectly abet such violations are totally
unmindful of the grave consequences of
their actions and/or omissions on the
present as well as future generations of the
country which will be forced to live in
unplanned cities and urban areas. The
people belonging to this class do not
realise that the constructions made in
violation of the relevant laws, master plan
or zonal development plan or sanctioned
building plan or the building is used for a
purpose other than the one specified in the
relevant statute or the master plan, etc.,
such constructions put unbearable burden
on the public facilities/amenities like water,
electricity, sewerage, etc. apart from
creating chaos on the roads. The pollution
caused due to traffic congestion affects the
health of the road users. The pedestrians
and people belonging to weaker sections of
the society, who cannot afford the luxury of
air-conditioned cars, are the worst victims
of pollution. They suffer from skin diseases
of different types, asthma, allergies and
even more dreaded diseases like cancer. It
can only be a matter of imagination how
much the Government has to spend on the
treatment of such persons and also for
controlling pollution and adverse impact
1974 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on
the
environment
due
to
traffic
congestion on the roads and chaotic
conditions created due to illegal and
unauthorised constructions. This Court
has, from time to time, taken cognizance of
buildings constructed in violation of
municipal and other laws and emphasised
that no compromise should be made with
the town planning scheme and no relief
should be given to the violator of the town
planning scheme, etc. on the ground that he
has
spent
substantial
amount
on
construction of the buildings, etc.-K.
Ramadas Shenoy v. Town Municipal
Council, Udipi [(1974) 2 SCC 506] , G.N.
Khajuria (Dr.) v. DDA [(1995) 5 SCC 762]
, M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam
Sahu [(1996) 6 SCC 464] , Friends Colony
Development Committee v. State ofOrissa
[(2004) 8 SCC 733] , M.C. Mehta v. Union
of India [(2006) 3 SCC 399] and S.N.
Chandrashekar v. State of Karnataka
[(2006) 3 SCC 208] .

75. Unfortunately, despite repeated
judgments by this Court and the High
Courts, the builders and other affluent
people
engaged
in
the
construction
activities, who have, over the years shown
scant respect for regulatory mechanism
envisaged in the municipal and other
similar laws, as also the master plans,
zonal development plans, sanctioned plans,
etc., have received encouragement and
support from the State apparatus. As and
when the Courts have passed orders or the
officers of local and other bodies have
taken
action
for
ensuring
rigorous
compliance with laws relating to planned
development of the cities and urban areas
and issued directions for demolition of the
illegal/unauthorised constructions, those in
power have come forward to protect the
wrongdoers
either
by
issuing
administrative orders or enacting laws for
regularisation of illegal and unauthorised
constructions in the name of compassion
and hardship. Such actions have done
irreparable harm to the concept of planned
development of the cities and urban areas.
It is high time that the executive and
political apparatus of the State take serious
view of the menace of illegal and
unauthorised constructions and stop their
support to the lobbies of affluent class of
builders and others, else even the rural
areas of the country will soon witness
similar chaotic conditions."

41. Thus, in view of various
dictums of Apex Court, it is clear that
obtaining prior permission is mandatory for
raising
construction
as
per
the
developmental and zonal plan.

42. In the instant case, District
Magistrate on 06.06.2013 had granted
conditional No Objection Certificate, which
mandated for prior sanction/approval of
map by the Authority before starting
construction. The prior permission was
mandatory, therefore, non compliance with
the same must result in cancelling the
concession made in favour of petitioner.

43. Moreover, the area over which
the integrated meat processing plant has
been set up falls in the agricultural area and
Master Plan of 2021 clearly provides for
special permission for setting up a
slaughter house in an agricultural area. The
bye-laws further confirm that width of the
road has to be 24 meter in case the land
used is for non residential purpose. The
report of the Chief Town & Country
Planner which was admitted and approved
by the Committee is in consonance with
bye-law 2.3.2.
3 All. M/s Tanya Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1975
44. The argument raised from
petitioner side as to variation in the width
of road ranging from 8.5 meter to 14 meter
by different authorities has no force. It is an
admitted position that meat processing
plant is situated 500 meter away from the
main Hapur Highway, and the length of
road is beyond 400 meter, thus, the width
of 24 meter as required under bye-law 2.3.2
cannot be displaced.

45. Petitioner has not brought out
any ground of procedural irregularity
having done by authorities or the State
Government in rejecting the application for
compounding/sanctioning of map.

46. Right from the year 1936 till
date, the Apex Court is of the view that
cardinal principle is that where a statute
requires a particular act to be done in
particular manner, the act has to be done in
that manner alone. In the instant case, there
is no challenge to the master plan or the
zonal
development
plan,
nor
any
amendment has been sought of the master
plan or the zonal development plan. The
area is undisputedly an agricultural area
where permission has been sought for
setting up a slaughter house, the same can
only be granted after due compliance has
been done by the petitioner.

47. Composition of offence as
provided under Section 32 can only be
done when the case falls within the
parameter. The statutory Authority cannot
go beyond the provision of the statute and
bye-laws to compound the offence.

48. The action of the Authority and
State Government cannot be faulted as it
rests on Clause 2.3.2 of bye-laws which
clearly stipulates the condition for running
a commercial establishment/industry on the
road which is substantially wide enough to
bear the burden of heavy commercial
vehicles.

49. The bye-laws have been
framed keeping in mind the impact of
vehicular movement on the road where
commercial activity is being carried out
since the business is of meat processing and
slaughtering, there will be movement of
heavy trucks and trolleys, which a narrow
lane or road could not bear. Sufficient
width of the road is required to felicitate
vehicular
movement,
causing
no
inconvenience to the other commercial
establishment or industry situated near it or
the residents using the road.

50. In the instant case, petitioner
should have been vigilant and before
raising
construction
he
should
have
complied with the condition laid down by
the District Magistrate in the year 2013
itself and before making investment should
have got the map sanctioned. In case,
application
was
moved
before
Development Authority, the petitioner
would have come to know that plant could
not be established on such a narrow
passage of 12 meter, since bye-law required
24 meter width.

51. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, I find that orders
impugned do not make out any case for
interference
exercising
extraordinary
jurisdiction
under
Article
226
of
Constitution of India.

52. Writ petition fails and is hereby
dismissed.
1976 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1976
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Writ-C No. 26784 of 2023

Energo Const. Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prashant Shukla, Sri Navin Sinha (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Shishir Prakash, Sri Raghav Dev Garg, Sri
Shad Khan, Sri Anurag Khanna (Sr.