# Pheasant Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 261
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-07
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 33964 of 2023
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pheasant-infrastructure-pvt-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53664
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Issue pertains to whether, after the order of
cancellation of petitioner's sanctioned map
dated 05.10.2012 had been set aside by
Commissioner, Meerut Division on 08.07.2019,
thereby reviving sanction originally granted on
262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
28.11.2006, Ghaziabad Development Authority
and Principal Secretary (Housing and Urban
Development) were legally justified in refusing
to release petitioner's approved map on the
ground that Master Plan 2021 had since come
into effect and land use altered to community
facility and road, instead of residential use.

Headnotes
U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act,
1973 - ss. 9, 41(3) - U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - s.
161 - Petitioner, a company engaged in
real estate development, submitted a
group housing map in respect of land
situated in Village Noor Nagar, Ghaziabad,
which was duly approved by Technical
Committee of GDA on 28.11.2006, subject
to
fulfillment
of
certain
formalities,
including deposit of requisite charges and
compliance with Government Order dated
25.01.1996 regarding partial Gram Sabha
land - Petitioner duly complied with all
stipulated
conditions,
deposited
required
amounts,
and
obtained
necessary
No
Objection
Certificates
from
various
departments, however, despite completion of
all formalities, GDA failed to release map and
subsequently, by order dated 05.10.2012,
cancelled same without issuing any notice or
communication to petitioner - In appeal, said
order set aside by Commissioner, Meerut
Division
on
08.07.2019,
who
directed
reconsideration of petitioner's case, holding
that all formalities had been completed by
2009 - In disregard of this direction, ViceChairman, GDA, by order dated 22.11.2019,
again rejected map on the ground that under
Master Plan 2021, land use had been changed
from residential to community facility and
road - Petitioner's revision u/s 41(3) of Act,
1973 was dismissed by Principal Secretary
(Housing
and
Urban
Development)
on
23.05.2023, leading to instant writ petition
challenging said orders as arbitrary, contrary
to Commissioner's order and violative of
settled principles of law.
Held:
Order dated 05.10.2012 cancelling map sanction
solely on ground of expiry of time, without
recording any deficiency in compliance with
letter dated 28.11.2006, was set aside by
Commissioner in appeal with direction to
complete any remaining formalities and take a
fresh decision, which has attained finality
between parties - The order clearly indicates
that map was submitted in 2006 and all
requisite formalities, including payment and
submission of bank guarantee were completed
by 2009 - Accordingly, Development Authority
was under legal obligation to issue map in terms
of letter dated 28.11.2006 - A perusal of
Commissioner's order dated 08.07.2019 reveals
that Development Authority was required to
examine only compliance with conditions of
letter

## Text

8 All. Pheasant Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
261
decided by the Debts Recovery
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the
DRT') only. A tenant is required to move
an application under Section 17 before the
DRT for asserting his rights under such a
registered document.

8. In our view, once an order has
been
passed
under
Section
14,
the
authorities are required to act in pursuance
of the same and as per the provisions of the
Act. The mechanism used by the borrowers
to wiggle out of their liability cannot be
countenanced by us.

9. In the present case, it is patently
clear that the loan was taken by the borrowers,
and subsequently, the registered lease deed
was executed by the borrower, without the
knowledge of the bank. In such a case, it was
for the tenant to approach the DRT and obtain
necessary orders therein. However, the tenant
in the present case has obtained an order of
status quo/stay from the Civil Court by alleged
suppression of material facts including
mortgage of the property by the borrower
without reference to the secured creditor, that
is, the petitioner bank.

10. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent No.5 submits that he
has recently made an application under
Section 17 before the DRT for stay of the
proceedings
being
carried
out
under
Section 14 of the Act.

11. In light of the above discussions,
we are of the view that the authorities should
act in accordance with the judgment of the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
Bajarang
Shyamsunder Agarwal (supra) and give
possession to the petitioner bank.

12. We make it clear that order
obtained by the tenant, wherein the
petitioner bank has not been made a party
is, in a manner of speaking, non-est in law
as it contravenes the provision of Section
34 of the Act.

13. In light of the same, the
authorities are directed to act in accordance
with law and give possession to the
petitioner bank within a period of eight
weeks from date if there is no other legal
impediment.

14. We make it clear that in the
event respondent No.5 obtains an order of
stay from the DRT, the authorities shall
comply with such stay, if granted.

15. With the above directions, the
writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 261
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ C No. 33964 of 2023

Pheasant Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Nikhil Agrawal, Sanjay Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Amit Manohar, Ravi Prakash Pandey

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether, after the order of
cancellation of petitioner's sanctioned map
dated 05.10.2012 had been set aside by
Commissioner, Meerut Division on 08.07.2019,
thereby reviving sanction originally granted on
262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
28.11.2006, Ghaziabad Development Authority
and Principal Secretary (Housing and Urban
Development) were legally justified in refusing
to release petitioner's approved map on the
ground that Master Plan 2021 had since come
into effect and land use altered to community
facility and road, instead of residential use.

Headnotes
U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act,
1973 - ss. 9, 41(3) - U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - s.
161 - Petitioner, a company engaged in
real estate development, submitted a
group housing map in respect of land
situated in Village Noor Nagar, Ghaziabad,
which was duly approved by Technical
Committee of GDA on 28.11.2006, subject
to
fulfillment
of
certain
formalities,
including deposit of requisite charges and
compliance with Government Order dated
25.01.1996 regarding partial Gram Sabha
land - Petitioner duly complied with all
stipulated
conditions,
deposited
required
amounts,
and
obtained
necessary
No
Objection
Certificates
from
various
departments, however, despite completion of
all formalities, GDA failed to release map and
subsequently, by order dated 05.10.2012,
cancelled same without issuing any notice or
communication to petitioner - In appeal, said
order set aside by Commissioner, Meerut
Division
on
08.07.2019,
who
directed
reconsideration of petitioner's case, holding
that all formalities had been completed by
2009 - In disregard of this direction, ViceChairman, GDA, by order dated 22.11.2019,
again rejected map on the ground that under
Master Plan 2021, land use had been changed
from residential to community facility and
road - Petitioner's revision u/s 41(3) of Act,
1973 was dismissed by Principal Secretary
(Housing
and
Urban
Development)
on
23.05.2023, leading to instant writ petition
challenging said orders as arbitrary, contrary
to Commissioner's order and violative of
settled principles of law.
Held:
Order dated 05.10.2012 cancelling map sanction
solely on ground of expiry of time, without
recording any deficiency in compliance with
letter dated 28.11.2006, was set aside by
Commissioner in appeal with direction to
complete any remaining formalities and take a
fresh decision, which has attained finality
between parties - The order clearly indicates
that map was submitted in 2006 and all
requisite formalities, including payment and
submission of bank guarantee were completed
by 2009 - Accordingly, Development Authority
was under legal obligation to issue map in terms
of letter dated 28.11.2006 - A perusal of
Commissioner's order dated 08.07.2019 reveals
that Development Authority was required to
examine only compliance with conditions of
letter
dated
28.11.2006,
and
that
till
cancellation of said order, neither Master Plan
2021 had been approved nor was order dated
05.10.2012 passed on ground of change of land
use - Thus, order of Vice Chairman dated
22.11.2019 is contrary to directions issued by
Commissioner in its order dated 8.7.2019 - The
order dated 23.05.2023 has been passed by
respondent
no.
1
on
the
grounds
that
formalities under letter dated 28.11.2006 were
incomplete and that, as per Master Plan 2021,
map could not be sanctioned in view of existing
land use
- While passing orders dated
22.11.2019 and 23.05.2023, Vice Chairman and
respondent no. 1 failed to consider effect of
Commissioner's setting aside of order dated
05.10.2012 and overlooked that, in similar
circumstances, State Government by order
dated
14.12.2018
had
permitted
sanction
contrary to Master Plan 2021, holding that
completion
of
formalities
prior
to
its
enforcement rendered change of land use no
ground for rejection - The order dated
22.11.2019 passed by Vice Chairman is contrary
to law, having been based on land use under
Master Plan 2021, despite map sanction
standing revived after setting aside order dated
05.10.2012,
as
sanction
preceded
the
enforcement of Master Plan 2021, order dated
22.11.2019 is hereby quashed - The order dated
23.05.2023 passed by respondent no. 1 is
unsustainable,
being
based
on
erroneous
assumption that map was filed after approval of
Master Plan 2021, whereas it had been
sanctioned
earlier
on
28.11.2006
-
Plea
regarding absence of exchange u/s 161 of Act,
1950
is
contrary
to
respondents'
own
admissions
and
Government
Order
dated
8 All. Pheasant Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
263
25.01.1996 - Hence, order dated 23.05.2023 is
quashed. [Paras 27 to 31] (E-13)
Case Law Cited
State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika reported
in
1966
AIR
Supreme
Court
1313;
Mahendra Singh Gill and Another v. Chief
Election Commissioner, New Delhi reported in
AIR 1978 SC 851 - referred to

List of Acts
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950; U.P. Urban Planning and Development
Act, 1973
List of Keywords
Article 226 of Constitution of India; Mandamus;
Release
the
maps;
Certiorari;
Technical
Committee; Sanction of map / Approval of map;
Master Plan 2021; Land use / Change of land
use; Community facility and road; No Objection
Certificate; Group housing project; Compliance
of conditions; Formalities completed; Gram
Sabha land / Exchange of land; Non est order;
Recommendation
of
Technical
Committee;
Remand for reconsideration; Un-communicated
order not valid in law; Opportunity of hearing;
Rejection of map contrary to directions;
Arbitrariness and biased action; Revival of
sanction; Effect of setting aside of cancellation
order; Fresh grounds in counter affidavit;
Supplementing
reasons
by
affidavit
impermissible;
Ghaziabad
Development
Authority; Government Order; No notice for
cancellation of map.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ C No. 33964 of
2023

From
the
Order
dated
23.5.2023
and
22.11.2019 of Respondent no. 1/Secretary
Housing & Urban Development, Government of
U.P., Lucknow and Ghaziabad Development
Authority, Ghaziabad

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitoner:
Nikhil Agrawal, Sanjay Kumar Mishra

Adv. for the Respondent:
Amit Manohar, Ravi Prakash Pandey
(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard Sri Nikhil Agarwal, learned
counsel along with Sanjay Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
State-respondent and Sri Amit Manohar,
learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3
and 4/Ghaziabad Development Authority,
Ghaziabad.

2. The petitioner has preferred the
present
petition
inter
alia
with
the
following prayer:-

"i. to issue a suitable writ or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned orders dated
23.05.2023
passed
by
the
Principal
Secretary, Housing (enclosed as Annexure
no.3);

ii. issue a suitable writ or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the Respondent no.1 to reconsider the matter in revision and decide
afresh considering each and every aspect
of the matter regarding map release of the
petitioner, in terms of Kamlesh Garg and
another vs State of U.P. (WRIT - C No.
65099 of 2015);

iii. to issue a suitable writ or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned orders dated
05.10.2012 and 22.11.2019 passed by the
Ghaziabad
Development
Authority
(enclosed as Annexure no.1 & 2);

iv. issue a suitable writ or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the Ghaziabad Development
Authority to release the maps of the
Petitioner company;
264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

v. issue any suitable, order or
direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case to meet the ends
of justice.

vi. award the cost of the petition
in favour of the Petitioner."

3. Pleadings have already been
exchanged between the parties. With the
consent of counsel for the parties, the
present petition is disposed of finally at the
admissision stage itself.

4. Facts in brief as contained in the
writ petition are that the petitioner
company
is
incorporated
under
the
provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having
its
registered
office
at
5140-41/34,
Chaudhary Market, 1st Floor, Preet-WaliGali, Dori Mandi, Sadar Bazar, District
Ghaziabad and is engaged in business of
Real Estate. The petitioner company has
submitted a map for group housing over
khasra no. 915M, 921, 923Μ, 924M,
925M, 926M, 927M, 928M, 929M, 930M,
937M, 939M & 945M situated at Village
Noor
Nagar,
Pargana
Loni,
District
Ghaziabad. The aforesaid map submitted
by the petitioner for group housing was
approved by the Technical Committee for
construction of group housing vide order
dated 28.11.2006. Certain conditions were
required to be fulfilled by the petitioner.
One of the relevant condition was that the
land equal to land of Gram Samaj, Chak
Road and Nali has to be left in one side of
project and the permission for the same has
to be obtained by the District Magistrate.
The Principal Secretary, (Housing) has
issued
a
Government
Order
dated
25.1.1996, notified that where there are
partial Gram Samaj land, falling within the
layout of the project/plan, equal size of
land ought to be kept aside for the purpose
of community facility and in case it is not
possible the value of concern partial land
be deposited in the office of District
Magistrate and with the said condition,
layout plan be passed. Copy of the
Government Order dated 25.1.1996 has
been appended as Annexure-5 to the writ
petition.

5. It is further stated in paragraph
11 of the writ petition that various projects
have been approved/sanctioned on the basis
of aforesaid Government Order dated
25.1.1996 and a list of projects which has
been approved on the basis of aforesaid
government order has been appended as
annexure-6 to the writ petition.

6. It is stated in paragraph 12 of the
writ petition that on 28.11.2006, the
petitioner received approval of map from
the Technical Committee for construction
of Group Housing subject to completion of
formalities. One of the condition mentioned
in the aforesaid letter to deposit a sum of
Rs.2,92,06,044/- as change of land use. .
The petitioner vide letter dated 29.11.2006
requested the Development Authority to
waive the charges for change of use of
land, in view of the Government Order No.
4988/832006
dated
18.10.2006.
The
respondent
Development
Authority,
considering the said application of the
petitioner and by letter dated 15.12.2006
informed the petitioner that the charges of
change of land use has been waived by the
Development Authority. Copy of letter
written
by
the
Assistant
Engineer,
Ghaziabad
Development
Authority
is
appended as Annexure No. 9 to the writ
petition.

7. It is further stated that the
petitioner has deposited bank draft of Rs.
2,10,95,598/-
being
the
charges,
as
8 All. Pheasant Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
265
mentioned in the sanction letter dated
28.11.2006, except the charges of change
of land use. The petitioner has further
deposited
bank
guarantee
of
Rs.
2,56,80,457/- of Cooperative Bank.

8. It is further stated that the Nagar
Nigam, Ghaziabad has granted no objection
vide no objection certificate in favour of
the petitioner dated 16.01.2007. The
National Highway Authority of India has
also issued NOC in favour of the petitioner.
Apart from the same the Fire Department
vide letter dated 6.8.2008 and the Ministry
of Defence vide letter dated 22.9.2008 also
has submitted the No Objection Certificate
in favour of the petitioner.

9. The respondent Development
Authority issued a letter dated 10.1.2009,
asking the petitioner to complete the
formalities within one week, failing which,
map will be rejected. The petitioner replied
the aforesaid letter vide letter dated
29.1.2009,
intimating
that
all
the
formalities have been completed, but the
map was not released. The petitioner again
wrote a letter dated 28.2.2009 in which
again request was made to release of map.
In the aforesaid letter it is again stated by
the petitioner that in response to the letter
of
the
Development
Authority,
the
petitioner has already explained that all the
formalities have been completed and as
such a request has been made to release the
map. It is further stated that the petitioner,
after completing all the formalities, has
continuously and regularly prayed the
Development Authority to release the map,
but the map was not released.

10. Despite the aforesaid fact that
all the formalities were completed map was
not released in view of fact that the Master
Plan-2021 was approved by the Ghaziabad
Development Authority. In the Master Plan
2021 the land use of khasra numbers
belonging to the petitioner company had
been marked for community facility and
road instead of residential use.

11. Despite representations made
by
the
petitioner
to
the
Chairman,
Ghaziabad
Development
Authority,
Principal Secretary Housing Development
for release of map, nothing was done and
finally
the
petitioner
moved
a
representation/grievances before Hon'ble
the Chief Minister. which was forwarded
by his office to the Development Authority.
The
petitioner
thereafter,
moved
a
representation before the Vice-Chairman,
Ghaziabad Development Authority and
Special Secretary of Housing and Urban
Planning, stating therein that the petitioner
company has completed all the formalities
within time but the map is not being
released in his favour. In reply to the
aforesaid
letter
dated
10.4.2018,
the
petitioner was informed vide letter dated
28.5.2018 that due to non-compliance of
condition, sanction of map of the petitioner
company has been cancelled on 5.10.2012
and for the first time, the order dated
5.10.2012 was provided to the petitioner
alongwith aforesaid letter.

12. The petitioner being aggrieved
with the order of cancellation of map dated
5.10.2022, preferred an appeal before the
Commissioner, Meerut Division Meerut.
The
Commissioner.
Meerut
Division,
Meerut, vide order dated 8.7.2019 has set
aside the order dated 5.10.2012 and further
remanded the matter to the Vice-Chairman
of Ghaziabad Development Authority with
the finding that the petitioner has submitted
map till 2006 and all the formalities were
completed by the petitioner in the year
2009, as such, the case of the petitioner for
266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
grant of approval with regard to the map of
the
petitioner
be
re-considered.
The
operative portion of the order passed by the
Vice-Chairman, Ghaziabad Development
Authority reads as follows:-
"आदेश
 अपीि आंकशक रूप से स्वीकार की जाती है।
प्राकिकरण द्वारा पाररत आक्षेकपत आदेश कदनांक 05.10.2012
कनरस्त ककया जाता है। प्रकरण उपाध्यक्ष, गाकजयाबाद कवकास
प्राकिकरण को इस कनदेश के साथ प्रकतप्रेकित ककया जाता है कक
क्योंकक अपीिाथी द्वारा प्रश्नगत मानकचत्र विज 2006 में प्राकिकरण
के समक्ष प्रस्तुत ककया गया था तथा उसके उपरान्त प्राकिकरण के
कनदेशानुसार विज 2009 तके औपचाररकतायें पूणज कर आवश्यक
िनराकश व बैंक गारन्टी आकद भी प्राकिकरण के समक्ष प्रस्तुत की
गयी है। इसकिये अपीिाथी के प्रश्नगत मानकचत्र का पुनः परीक्षण कर
कनयमानुसार औपचाररकतायें पूणज कराकर अपीिाथी के मानकचत्र के
सम्बन्ि में पुनः कनणजय पाररत ककया जायें। आदेश की सत्याकपत प्रकत
सकहत उपाध्यक्ष गाकजयाबाद कवकास प्राकिकरण की पत्राविी
अनुपािनाथज प्रेकित की जाये। आवश्यक कायजवाही उपरान्त इस
न्यायािय को पत्राविी अकभिेखागार में संकचत की जाये।

कदनांक 08.07.2019
ह०अ०
(अनीता सी० मेश्राम)
आयुक्त
मेरठ मण्डि, मेरठ।

यह आदेश मेरे द्वारा आज कदनांक 08.07.2019
को खुिे न्यायािय में हस्ताक्षररत कर उद्घोकित ककया गया।
ह०अ०
(अनीता सी० मेश्राम)
आयुक्त
मेरठ मण्डि, मेरठ।"

13. The Vice Chairman of the
Ghaziabad Development Authority vide
order dated 22.11.2019 denied the approval
to the map of the petitioner on the ground that
khasra nos. 915, 945, 946, 939, 937, 921, 923
to 930 situated at Village Noor Nagar are
under Master Plan 2021, Zone-1 and the use
of aforesaid khasra is community facility,
whereas the map submitted by the petitioner
is for group housing, as such, unless and until
the proposal by the petitioner for change of
land use is submitted before the Development
Authority, the map cannot be sanctioned and
in case the map for the use of land for
community facility is submitted, the same
may be considered.

14.
Being
aggrieved
with
the
aforesaid
order
dated
22.11.2019,
the
petitioner preferred a revision as provided
section 41(3) of U.P. Urban Planning and
Development Act, 1973 before the Principal
Secretary, Housing and Urban Development,
Civil Secretariat, Vidhan Sbhabha Marg,
Lucknow. The aforesaid revision filed by the
petitioner
has
been
rejected
by
the
Respondent no. 1/Secretary Housing &
Urban
Development
vide
order
dated
23.5.2023. Aggrieved against the aforesaid
the petitioner has preferred the present
petition.

15. The petitioner has claimed parity
with case of Kamlesh Garg in his appeal. It
was specifically stated in the appeal that in
case of Kamlesh Garg, the State Government
by order dated 14.12.2016 has granted
permission on the ground that her case for
grant of permission was pending prior to
enforcement of Master Plan 2021 and she has
partly complied with the terms and conditions
of sanction of map, as such, she is entitled for
sanction of map as per land use, which was
applicabie prior to Master Plan 2021.

16. In the counter affidavit filed by
the respondents it is stated that the letter of
Technical Committee dated 28.11.2006
was recommendation of the Technical
Committee to complete the formalities. It is
also stated that it was not an order for
sanction of map, as applied for by the
petitioner firm.

17. A new case has been set up in
the counter affidavit, stating therein that the
8 All. Pheasant Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
267
petitioner firm has completely failed to
obtain necessary order for exchange of land
of Gram Sabha under section 161 of The
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act, 1950 from the District
Magistrate, Ghaziabad as per letter dated
16.1.2007, as such, recommendation of
Technical Committee was cancelled in the
year 2012.

18. It is further stated that the
Ghaziabad Development Authority has
prepared its Zonal Development Plan 2021
under section 9 of the U.P. Urban Planning
& Development Act, 1973 and has invited
objection from the public against the
proposed plan. Various objections were
filed
and
after
considering
these
objections/suggestion by the Technical
Committee, so empowered, the zonal plan
was approved and pending application for
sanction of map found in accordance with
the Master Plan 2021 were included in the
plan.

19. It is further stated in the counter
affidavit that the map applied for group
housing was not found in consonance with
Master Plan 2021 Zone-1, as the land was
marked for zonal road and community
service and therefore, map was rejected. In
view of the aforesaid averment, the
contention of learned counsel for the
respondents is that as the petitioner has not
fulfilled the conditions mentioned in the
letter dated 28.11.2006, his map was rightly
cancelled and in view of the Master Plan
2021, the petitioner's map cannot be
sanctioned.

20. It is argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the order
dated 5.10.2012 was passed without giving
any notice or opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner and the said order was even not
communicated to the petitioner within time.
The said order was communicated to the
petitioner with information/order dated
28.5.2018. Referring to the aforesaid order,
the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits the arbitrariness and biased action
of the Development Authority reflect in the
said order. In the said order, it is clearly
mentioned that the map was sanctioned by
the Development Authority, but was not
issued and time period is over as such,
there is no justification of approval. The
said order also contains recital that no
notice for cancellation of map is required
and even there is no need to inform the
petitioner about cancellation. The said
order reads as under:

"उपाध्यक्ष
कृपया पूवज आख्या पृष्ठ पर कवकि सहायक कायाजिय आख्या का
अविोकन करने का कष्ट करें, कजससे प्रमाकणत है कक प्राकिकरण
द्वारा मानकचत्र स्वीकृत ककया गया था, परन्तु कनगजत नहीं ककया गया
और समयावकि समाप्त हो चुकी है। अब उक्त स्वीकृकत का कोई
कवकिक औकचत्य नहीं है। मानकचत्र स्वीकृकत का पािन न करने के
कारण मानकचत्र आरम्भ से ही कनरस्त होने योग्य है। कनरस्तीकरण हेतु
कोई नोकटस भेजने की कवकिक राय के अनुसार कोई आवश्यकता
नहीं है और न ही कनरस्तीकरण उपरान्त कोई सूचना भेजनी आवश्यक
है। उकचत होगा कक अकिशासी अकभयन्ता-1 (प्रवतजन) के माध्यम से
यह सत्यापन करा किया जाये कक स्थि पर स्वीकृकत के क्रम में कोई
कनमाजण तो नहीं है, यकद कनमाजण है तो उसके कविय में अकिकनयम का
सुसंगत िाराओं के अन्तगजत कायजवाही की जाये। कृपया अनुमोदन
प्रदान करने का कष्ट करें।
ह०अ०
05/10/12
(आर०के० कसंह)
सकचव "

21. It is further argued by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
said order was not communicated to the
petitioner till 2018 and this fact is admitted
by the respondents. The learned counsel for
the petitioner argued that un-communicated
order is not an order in the eyes of law. For
268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the said proposition, the learned counsel for
the petitioner has relied upon the judgment
and order of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed
in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Amar
Singh Harika reported in 1966 AIR
Supreme Court 1313 in which the Hon'ble
Apex Court specifically stated that mere
passing of an order is not effective unless it
is published and communicated to the
officer concerned. The relevant portion of
paragraph 11 of the said judgment quoted
hereinbelow:-

"We are, therefore, reluctant to
hold that an order of dismissal passed by
an appropriate authority and kept on its file
without communicating it to the officer
concerned or otherwise publishing it will
take effect as from the date on which the
order is actually written out by the said
authority; such an order can only be
effective after it is communicated to the
officer
concerned
or
is
otherwise
published."

22. Thus, it is argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that when the
order of cancellation of map was passed,
Master Plan 2021 was not in existence. The
zonal
plan
has
been
approved
and
implemented
from
3.2.2015.
Thus,
cancellation order being illegal and having
been set aside by the Commissioner in
appeal filed by the petitioner, sanction of
map by order dated 28.11.2006 was revived
and thus, on the date of approval of Master
Plan 2021, map of the petitioner stands
sanctioned.

23. Heard counsel for the parties
and perused the record.

24. From perusal of records it
appears that in compliance of the order
passed by the Commissioner in the appeal,
the Development Authority was under
obligation to consider that the formalities,
as required by letter dated 28.11.2006 had
been completed or not and in case, the
formalities, as mentioned in the order are
completed, the authority was required to
release the map, but the Development
Authority, wholly illegally, carved out a
new case to reject the sanction of map, i.e.
land use under Master Plan 2021, which is
contrary to the directions issued by the
Commissioner in the appeal.

24A. The State Government, while
passing the impugned order, has not at all
considered this aspect of the matter that the
order of cancellation dated 5.10.2012
having
being
set
aside
by
the
Commissioner, the order dated 28.11.2006
stands revived and on the date of approval
of master plan 2021, the map of the
petitioner stands sanctioned as all the
conditions of order dated 28.11.2006 were
fulfilled.

25. In the counter affidavit, a new
case is being carved out for rejecting the
claim of the petitioner that no order of
exchange of land, as provided under section
161 of The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 was passed by the
District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, but in view
of the government order dated 25.1.1996,
there was no requirement of any order
under section 161 of the Act, 1950 and the
only
requirement
was
to
provide
consolidated land equal to the land of Gram
Sabha, chak road or Nali in the layout plan.
Moreover, in view of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Mahendra Singh Gill and Another Vs.
Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi
reported in AIR 1978 SC 851, the reasons
cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in
the shape of affidavit or otherwise.
8 All. Pheasant Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
269
Paragraph 8 of the aforesaid judgment
reads as follows:-

"8. The second equally relevant
matter is that when a statutory functionary
makes an order based on certain grounds,
its validity must be judged by the reasons
so mentioned and cannot be supplemented
by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or
otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the
beginning may, by the time it comes to
court on account of a challenge, get
validated by additional grounds later
brought out."

26. Moreover, in the counter
affidavit, in paragraphs 30 & 33, the
respondents have clearly admitted that all
the formalities mentioned in the letter dated
28.11.2006
were
completed
by
the
petitioner. The relevant paragraphs 30 & 33
are reproduced below:

"30.
That
the
contents
of
paragraph no. 37 of the writ petition are
not admitted hence denied. In reply thereof,
it is submitted that while passing the order
dated 28.11.2006 the terms and conditions
prescribed therein was honored by the
present petitioner.

33.
That
the
contents
of
paragraph no. 40 and 41 of the writ
petition are not admitted hence denied. In
reply thereof, it is submitted that while
passing the order dated 28.11.2006 the
terms and conditions prescribed therein
was honored by the present petitioner."

27.
Having
considered
the
arguments of counsel for the parties and
from perusal of record, the Court finds that
the order dated 5.10.2012, cancelling the
sanction of map was passed only on the
ground that the time for issuance of map is
over. In the said order, it is nowhere
mentioned that the petitioner has not
completed the formalities, as mentioned in
the letter dated 28.11.2006. The said order
has been set aside by the Commissioner in
appeal, with a direction that if any
formalities remains, the same be fulfilled
and a fresh decision be taken. The said
order of Commissioner is final between the
parties. This order clearly refers that the
map was submitted in 2006 and all the
formalities were completed upto year 2009,
including payment of requisite amount and
submission of bank guarantee. In view of
the aforesaid findings, the Development
Authority was under legal obligation to
consider the issuance of map as per letter
dated 28.11.2006. From the perusal of the
order of Commissioner dated 8.7.2019, it is
clear that the Development Authority was
required to consider only compliance of
conditions of letter dated 28.11.2006,
admittedly till the time of cancellation of
order dated 28.11.2006, neither master plan
2021 was approved nor the order dated
5.10.2012 was passed on the ground of
change of land use. Thus, the order of Vice
Chairman dated 22.11.2019 is contrary to
the directions issued by the Commissioner
in its order dated 8.7.2019.

28. The order dated 23.5.2023 has
been passed by the respondent no. 1 only
on the ground that the formalities as per
letter dated 28.11.2006 were not completed
and as per the present use of land as per
master plan 2021, the map could not
sanctioned.

29.
The
Vice
Chairman
of
Development Authority, while passing the
order dated 22.11.2019 as well as the
respondent no. 1, while passing the order
dated 23.5.2023 has not at all considered
the effect of setting aside of the order dated
5.10.2012 by the Commissioner and has
270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
also
not
considered
that
in
similar
circumstances, the State Government itself
by an order dated 14.12.2018 has granted
permission contrary to the master plan
2021 to Kamlesh Garg on the ground that
prior to passing of master plan 2021, the
formalities for sanction of map were
completed, as such, change of land use in
master plan 2021 cannot be basis for
rejection of map.

30. The order of Vice Chairman
dated 22.11.2019 is contrary to law, as the
Vice Chairman while passing the aforesaid
order has proceeded on the basis of land
use in Master Plan 2021, whereas the
sanction of map of petitioner stands
revived, after setting aside the order dated
5.10.2012 and as the sanction was prior to
enforcement of Master Plan 2021, the order
passed
by
the
Vice-Chairman
dated
22.11.2019 is hereby quashed.

31. The order passed by the
respondent no. 1 under section 43(1) of
U.P. Urban Planning and Development
Act,
1973
also
proceeded
on
the
presumption that the permission has to be
considered as the map was filed for
sanction after approval of Master Plan
2021, whereas the map of the petitioner
was sanctioned by letter dated 28.11.2006
as per the then use of land. The contention
of the respondents that no exchange as
provided under section 161 of The U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 was made, is contrary to the
own admission of the respondent in
paragraphs 30 & 33 of the counter
affidavit as well as contrary to the
Government Order dated 25.1.1996. Since
the order dated 28.11.2006 was revived
after setting aside of cancellation, the
order of respondent no. 1 dated 23.5.2023
is quashed.
32. As the order of cancellation of
map dated 5.10.2012 has already been set
aside by the order dated 08.07.2019 passed
by the Commissioner, the same is not
required to be quashed as it is a non-est
order.

33. The writ petition is allowed. A
Mandamus is issued to Respondent no.
2/Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development
Authority, Ghaziabad to release the map of
the petitioner from Group Housing which
has already been sanctioned vide letter
deted 28.11.2006 within a period of four
weeks from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.

34. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 270
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ C No. 52412 of 2016

Shiv Prasad Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
Hindustan Petroleum Corportation Ltd. &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Akanksha Sharma, Manish Goyal (Senior
Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Komal Mehrotra, S.C., Vikas Budhwar

Issue for Consideration
Matter
pertains
to
whether
order
dated
05.07.2016 passed by Chief Regional Manager,
Hindustan
Petroleum
Corporation
Limited,