# Rajendra Prasad Arora & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1770
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-16
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 4633 of 2019
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, Piyush Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-prasad-arora-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45239
- **Pages:** 23

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri Anoop Trivedi, Sri Devi Prasad
Mishra, Sri Vibhu Rai.

Uttar
Pradesh
Urban
Planning
and
Development Act, 1973-Section 8 and 9Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) has
failed to comply statutory provisions-section
8 and 9-zonal development plans of all the
zones-not
prepared
yet-current
zonal
development plan is against master plan-till
preparation of zonal development plans-no
further commercial activity shall be allowed
in
residential
areas
without
impact
assesment-no further maps be sanctioned-no
freehold applications in respect of parks and
open spaces be allowed.

CASES CITED:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,957 of 74,236. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39957 for what follows._

1770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interest for money remaining with the
Government which would be refunded.
There is no reason to restrict the same to
an assessee only without extending the
similar benefit to a resident/ deductor who
has deducted tax at source and deposited
the same before remitting the amount
payable
to
a
non-resident/
foreign
company.

38. Providing for payment of
interest in case of refund of amounts paid
as tax or deemed tax or advance tax is a
method now statutorily adopted by fiscal
legislation to ensure that the aforesaid
amount of tax which has been duly paid in
prescribed time and provisions in that
behalf form part of the recovery machinery
provided in a taxing Statute. Refund due
and payable to the assessee is debt-owed
and
payable
by
the
Revenue.
The
Government,
therebeing
no
express
statutory provision for payment of interest
on the refund of excess amount/tax
collected by the Revenue, cannot shrug off
its apparent obligation to reimburse the
deductors lawful monies with the accrued
interest for the period of undue retention
of such monies. The State having received
the money without right, and having
retained and used it, is bound to make the
party good, just as an individual would be
under like circumstances. The obligation
to refund money received and retained
without right implies and carries with it
the right to interest. Whenever money has
been received by a party which ex ae quo
et bono ought to be refunded, the right to
interest follows, as a matter of course."

28. While concluding our opinion,
we have no hesitation to observe that the
undisputed fact is that the respondent
no.5 has paid the entire amount towards
the cost of Flat yet possession of the Flat
was not given to the respondent no.5
since 2012 till filing of this writ petition.
It is further not denied by the petitioner
that the order of the U.P. Real Estate
Regulatory Authority, Gautam Budh
Nagar was passed in the year 2018 and
since then any amount in compliance of
the order impugned was paid to the
respondent no.5. This conduct of the
petitioner shows that he is not liable to
get any sympathy by this Court while
exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. It is further obseraved that the law
of equity and principle of natural justice
go in favour of respondent No.5.

29. In view of the discussion made
above
and
considering
the
legal
proposition
as
contemplated
under
sections 18, 21 and 81 of the Act, 2016
and in view of clause 9.2 (ii) of the form
of agreement contained in Annexure to
the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and
Development)
(Agreement
for
Sale/Lease) Rules, 2018, we are of the
view that the present writ petition is
liable to be dismissed due to lack of
merit.

30.

The
writ
petition
is,
accordingly, dismissed.

31. No order as to cost.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1770

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGARWAL, J.

Writ C No. 4633 of 2019
2 All. Rajendra Prasad Arora & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1771
Rajendra Prasad Arora & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Rajendra Kumar Sharma, Sri Ashutosh
Srivastava, Sri S.K. Garg, Sri Shailesh
Kumar Yadav, Sri Ravi Kant

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anoop Trivedi, Sri Devi Prasad
Mishra, Sri Vibhu Rai.

Uttar
Pradesh
Urban
Planning
and
Development Act, 1973-Section 8 and 9Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) has
failed to comply statutory provisions-section
8 and 9-zonal development plans of all the
zones-not
prepared
yet-current
zonal
development plan is against master plan-till
preparation of zonal development plans-no
further commercial activity shall be allowed
in
residential
areas
without
impact
assesment-no further maps be sanctioned-no
freehold applications in respect of parks and
open spaces be allowed.

CASES CITED:

1. Smt. Malti Kaul and another vs. Allahabad
Development Authority and another AIR 1995 All
397

2.
Virendra
Kumar
Tyagi
vs.
Ghaziabad
Development Authority, W.P. no. 46706/1999,
decided on 27.10.2005

3. Smt. Rekha Rani vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 2014
ILR 1 All 70

4. Nisha Kumari vs. State of U.P. 2015 1 AWC 339
All.

5. R.K. Mittal and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Ors. AIR 2012 SC 389.

6. Chairman Indore Vikas Pradhikaran vs. Pure
Industrial Coke & Chemicals Limited and ors, (2007)
8 SCC 705
7. Machavarapu Srinivasa Rao and Ors. vs. The
Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban
Development Authority and Ors. 2011 (6) UJ 3775

8. Dipak Kumar Mukherjee vs. Kolkata Municipal
Corporation and Ors. AIR 2013 SC 927.

9. K. Ramadas Shenoy vs. Chief Officers,
Town Municipal Council, Udipi and Ors. AIR
1974 SC 2177

10. Virender Gaur and Ors. vs. State of
Haryana and Ors. JT 1997 (10) SC 600.

11. Pleasant Stay Hotel and Ors. vs. Palani
Hills Conservation Council andOrs. JT 1995
(6) SCC 600.

12. Cantonment Board, Jabalpur and Ors.
vs. S.N. Awasthi and Ors. 1995 Supp (4)
SCC 595.

13. Pratibha Co-operative Housing Society
Ltd. And Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and
Ors. AIR 1991 SC 1453

14. G.N. Khajuria and Ors. vs. Delhi
Development Authority and Ors. AIR 1996
SC 253

15. Manju Bhatia and Ors. vs. New Delhi
Municipal Council and Ors. AIR 1998 SC
223

16.
M.I.
Builders
Pvt.
Ltd.
vs.
RadheyShyamSahu and Ors. AIR 1999 SC
2468

17.
Friends
Colony
Development
Committee vs. State of Orissa and Ors. AIR
2005 SC 1

18. Shanti Sports Club and Ors. vs. Union
of India (UOI) and Ors. AIR 2010 SC 433

19. Priyanka Estates International Pvt. Ltd.
And Ors. vs. State of Assam and Ors. AIR
2010 SC 1030.

20. M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (UOI)
and Ors. (2006) 4 CompLJ 450 (SC).
1772 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
21. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs.
Bombay Environmental Action Group and
Ors. AIR 2006 SC 1489.

22. Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran
vs. Pure Industrial Cock and Chem. Ltd.
And Ors. AIR2007 SC 2458
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Singh Baghel, J.)

1. The petitioners have instituted this writ
proceedings for quashing of the demand notice
dated 20th September, 2018 issued by the
Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad
(now Prayagraj Development Authority,
Prayagraj)1, the second respondent, whereby
the petitioners have been called upon to deposit
a sum of Rs.50,62,774.00 for compounding of
their construction, which is commercial, and
other charges.

2. The relevant facts may briefly be
stated: the petitioners are owners of a part, an
area of 285.32 square meter, of Nazul Free
hold Site No. 'Z', Civil Station, Allahabad,
which is a part portion of Premises Nos. 14
and 18, New Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg,
Allahabad. The said plot was purchased by the
petitioners vide registered sale-deed dated 11th
December, 2009. The petitioners made an
application to the second respondent for
sanctioning of map of the residential
accommodation, which was sanctioned. Later,
the petitioners submitted a revised map for
change of use of the building from residential
to commercial. Upon the said application, the
second respondent has issued a fresh notice
dated 20th September, 2018, whereby apart
from other fees the compounding fee for a sum
of Rs.21,61,086.00 and the impact fee to a tune
of Rs.33,04,148.00 have been demanded.

3. The petitioners have averred in the
writ petition that the demand notice has been
issued on the ground that it relates to
commercial use of the building and not for
sanctioning the building map afresh. It is stated
that demand of impact fee of Rs.33,04,148.00
is totally illegal as it is not provided anywhere
in the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and
Development Act, 19732. Similarly, the
compounding fee is also arbitrary and illegal.

4. It is stated that for the area where the
petitioners'
plot
is
situated
no
zonal
development plan has been prepared by the
development authority. It is further stated that
Section 9 of the Act contemplates preparation
of zonal development plan in terms of the
master plan and the compounding contrary to
the zonal development plan cannot be
permitted.
Therefore,
unless
zonal
development plan is sanctioned, compounding
fee cannot be charged. The development
authority has not framed any rule prescribing
the rate of imposition of the compounding fee.

5. It is also stated that the demand of
the permit fee, inspection fee and Malwa
fee is illegal and against the judgment of
this Court in Smt. Malti Kaul and
another
v. Allahabad Development
Authority and another3. It is averred that
the development fee and betterment fee
have been highly excessive, arbitrary and
contrary to the law laid down by the
judgment in the cases of Virendra Kumar
Tyagi
v.
Ghaziabad
Development
Authority4, Smt. Rekha Rani v. State of
U.P. and others5, Smt. Nisha Kumari v.
State of U.P. and others6, and Smt.
Malti Kaul (supra).

6. It is averred in the writ petition
that there is a nexus between the local
builders
and
the
officials
of
the
development authority in demanding the
arbitrary and illegal demand against the
provisions of the Act. The petitioners have
also demanded a free and fair judicial
2 All. Rajendra Prasad Arora & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1773
enquiry in this matter, otherwise situation
leads to a disastrous development and the
purpose and object of the Act would be
defeated.

7. The petitioners have also prayed
that this writ petition be converted into the
public interest litigation as the authorities
are arbitrarily converting the residential
areas, which have been earmarked as such
in the master plan, into the commercial
area. It is stated in a supplementary
affidavit
that
there
are
only
nine
bungalows remained on the Elgin Road,
which are used purely as residential, and
rest of the buildings on the said road are
involved in the commercial activities such
as marriage hall, nursing home, etc. The
second respondent has sanctioned the map
for the commercial activities in the
residential areas contrary to the master
plan. The details of those commercial
buildings
have
been
mentioned
in
Paragraph-7
of
the
supplementary
affidavit.

8. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of the second and third
respondents, i.e. the PDA, sworn by the
Zonal Officer, Prayagraj Development
Authority, Prayagraj. It is stated in the
counter affidavit that the development fee,
stacking fees, mutation charges and water
fees are defined under Sections 2 (ggg), 2
(kk), 2(hhh)(ii) and 2(ll) of the Act
respectively. It is also stated that Master
Plan-2021 is currently in force with effect
from 12th August, 2006 and the PDA has
also framed the zonal plan for some
portion of its development area and it has
also framed building bye-laws, which are
known as 'Bhawan Nirman Evam Vikas
Upvidhi 20087' (as amended upto 2016).
The Building Bye-laws have been framed
for planned development of the area and
so long the zonal development plans are
not prepared under Section 9 of the Act,
the authority with the previous approval of
the State Government may make bye-laws
consistent with the Act. The demand of
sub-division charges and other charges
have been justified in the counter affidavit.
It is further stated that the compounding
bye-laws have been circulated by the State
Government
vide
order
dated
14th
January, 2010 in the form of model
compounding bye-laws. It was placed
before the Board of the PDA for
consideration of the matter in its Board
Meeting dated 07th May, 2010 and it was
adopted. Hence, no further approval of the
State
Government
is
required.
In
Paragraph-51 of the counter affidavit it has
been admitted that the zonal development
plans are not prepared, hence in view of
the provisions of Section 57(e) of the Act
the bye-laws may provide for approval for
division of any site into plots. The
Building Bye-laws have been approved by
the Board in its meeting dated 22nd
December,
2011.
For
the
sake
of
convenience, Paragraphs-52, 67 and 68 of
the counter affidavit are reproduced as
under:

"52.
That,
the
Allahabad
Development Authority, Allahabad has,
with the previous approval of the State
Government, already adopted the Building
Bye-laws in its Board meeting dated
22.12.2011.
The
Building
Bye-laws
contain provisions regarding the division
of any site into plots for the erection of
building. Chapter 2.2 of the Building Byelaws contains provisions for open spaces
(park, etc.) which are required when the
layout plan is sanctioned for sub-division
of any site. Thus sub division of any land
can only be carried out after obtaining
permission from the Vice Chairman of the
1774 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Authority,
in
accordance
with
the
provisions of the Building Bye-laws. A true
copy of the relevant portion of Building
Bye-laws,
framed
by
the
Allahabad
Development Authority, as referred to
above is being filed herewith and marked
as Annexure 'CA-1' to this Counter
Affidavit.

67. That as regards change of
the residential area to the commercial
area
and
approval
of
the
State
Government
to
such action of
the
Development Authority, provision have
been made in Section 13 and section 38-A
of the Act.

68. That furthermore Master
Plan 2021 and Zone Plan B-4 permits
certain commercial and other activities in
residential area subject to fulfillment of
certain conditions laid down in the
Master/Zonal Plan itself and on payment
of impact fees."

9. A supplementary counter affidavit
has also been filed on behalf of the PDA.
It is stated therein that the Master Plan2021, which is in force at present, has been
amended four times on 11th July, 2011,
20th June, 2013, 30th June, 2015 and 01st
May, 2018 after following the procedure.
By the amendment dated 11th July, 2011
the land use of the land contained in
certain areas have been changed from
industrial (Kuteer Udyog) to residential
(R-2). Similarly, by the amendment dated
20th June, 2013 the land use pertaining to
Village
Abusa
and
Sarfuddinpur,
Prayagraj
has
been
changed
from
agricultural
to
technical/management
institution. Vide amendment dated 30th
June, 2015 the land use pertaining to
Village Jalalpur Ghosi, Tehsil Sadar,
Allahabad
has
been
changed
from
agricultural
to
residential.
By
the
amendment dated 01st May, 2018 the land
use pertaining to Village Ravatpur and
Jalalpur Ghosi, Tehsil Sadar, Prayagraj has
been
changed
from
agricultural
to
educational
institutions/
technical
institutions. In the Master Plan-2021 the
city has been divided into 12 zones and the
zones have been further divided into subzones.

10. We have heard Sri Ravi Kant,
learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri
S.K. Garg and Sri Rajendra Kumar
Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned
Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vibhu
Rai, learned Advocate, for the second and
third respondents- PDA.

11. Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has
submitted that the PDA has failed to
prepare the zonal development plan even
after lapse of 13 years. Only one zonal
development plan for one zone has been
prepared recently, that too is contrary to
the master plan. He has invited our
attention to the Master Plan-2021, Table
No. 9.1 at Page 30, to demonstrate that
36.11 per cent land is earmarked for
residential areas and only 2.43% area is
shown for commercial activities. This ratio
has been drastically changed in the zonal
development plan of Zone B-4, which has
been prepared, wherein commercial area
has been arbitrarily increased to 12%,
which is unreasonable and illegal.

12. He has also invited our
attention to the zonal development plan
for Zone B-4, wherein it is mentioned
that in civil lines zone there are already
several
shopping
and
commercial
establishments to cater the need of the
residents of the zone, hence there is no
need to allow commercial activities in the
2 All. Rajendra Prasad Arora & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1775
residential areas under the garb of the
mixed zones.

13. It is next urged that the concept
of mixed zone is contrary to the master
plan having regard to the fact that in Zone
B-4 there are several markets, hotels, bigbazar and several shopping complexes. He
has drawn our attention to Page 12 of the
zonal development plan, wherein this fact
is recorded. He has further urged that in
larger interest of the city this Court can
examine the other issues relating to
planned development of the city. The
Court has summoned the records and
sufficient opportunity has been furnished
to the respondents, therefore, the Court can
examine the issue regarding mixed zone
and changing residential areas to mixed
area, which is contrary to the master plan.

14. It is submitted that under Article
226 of the Constitution this Court has
ample power to examine the legality of the
action of the development authority if it is
found that its action is against the
provisions of the Act.

15. Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the PDA, has submitted
that it is true that the zonal development plan
for only one zone has been prepared in 2011
but under Section 57(e) of the Act the
development authority has power that so long
the zonal development plans are not prepared,
the development can be made in terms of the
bye-laws. He has justified the imposition of
various charges such as permit fee, inspection
fee, malwa fee, development fee and
betterment fee. He has submitted that the issue
with regard to some of the above mentioned
charges is pending before the Supreme Court,
hence it would be appropriate to wait the
judgment of the Supreme Court in respect of
those charges.

16. Sri Trivedi has very fairly submitted
that he has no explanation to offer in respect of
the inordinate delay in preparing the zonal
development plans in terms of Section 9 of the
Act.

17. Sri Anoop Trivedi with the help of
the Town Planner, who is present in the Court,
has placed before us the original records,
master plan, one of the zonal development
plans and various other records.

18. Before we advert to the rival
submissions advanced at the Bar, we think it
appropriate to examine the relevant statutory
provisions at play in the instant case.

19. The Act i.e. the Uttar Pradesh Urban
Planning and Development Act, 1973 was
enacted with an object for the development
according to plan of the area, which is declared
as development area. Chapter II of the Act
deals with declaration of the development
areas,
constitution
of
the
development
authority, etc.. Section 7 under Chapter II of
the Act enumerates the objects of the authority,
it provides that the object of the authority shall
be to promote and secure the development of
the development area according to the plan and
to execute works in connection with supply of
water and electricity, to dispose of sewage and
to provide and maintain other services and
amenities.

20. Chapter III of the Act deals with
the Master Plan and Zonal Development
Plan. The provisions under this chapter of
the Act are material for our purposes.
Section 8 of the Act provides for master
plan for the development area. It lays
down that the development area shall be
divided in various zones indicating the
manner in which the land in each zone is
proposed to be used. It also provides that
the master plan shall be a basic pattern of
1776 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the framework within which the zonal
development plans of various zones may
be prepared. Section 8 of the Act reads
thus:

"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 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 plan 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."

21. Section 9 of the Act deals with
zonal development plans. Under Section 8
the master plan provides a basic pattern
within which the zonal development plans
are prepared. It gives more details about
the land uses proposed in the zones, such
as, public buildings, industry, business,
markets, schools, hospitals and open
spaces, etc. The zonal development plan is
to be prepared simultaneously with the
master plan or soon thereafter. Section 9 of
the Act reads as under:

"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 useplan 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 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;

*** *** ***

(vii) the number of residential
buildings which may be erected on plot or
site;

*** *** ***

(ix)
the
prohibitions
or
restrictions regarding erection of shops,
2 All. Rajendra Prasad Arora & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1777
workshops, warehouses or factories or
buildings of a specified architectural
feature
or
buildings
designed
for
particular purposes in the locality;

*** *** ***

(xi) the restrictions regarding
the use of any site for purposes other than
erection of
 buildings;"

22. Section 11 of the Act enjoins the
procedure
to
be
followed
in
the
preparation and approval of the master
plan and the zonal development plan. It
says that the authority shall prepare a plan
in draft and publish it inviting suggestions/
objections from the residents with respect
to the draft plan. Similar opportunity is to
be given to the local authorities. After
considering all the objections, suggestions
and
representations
received
by
the
authority, a final plan is prepared and is
submitted to the State Government for its
approval. Once the plan is approved by the
State Government, the plan comes into
operation. Chapter III-A of the Act
provides
for
the
arterial
roads
in
development area. Chapter IV of the Act
deals with amendment of the master plan
and the zonal development plan. Section
13 of the Act says that the authority may
make any amendment in the master plan or
the zonal development plan, but it shall not
effect the important alterations in the
character of the plan and which do not
relate to the extent of land uses or the
standards of population density. The State
Government
also
can
make
the
amendments in the master plan or zonal
development plan. Sub-section (3) of
Section 13 provides that before making
any amendment in the plan, the State
Government or the authority, as the case
may be, shall publish a notice in at least
one newspaper having circulation in the
development area inviting objections and
suggestions in respect of the proposed
amendment from the residents. Similarly,
if the authority makes any amendment in
the plan, it shall report to the State
Government the full particulars of such
amendments within the stipulated period
i.e. thirty days.

23.

Chapter
V
deals
with
development of the land. Basically this
chapter is meant for sanctioning of the
maps for the residential and commercial
activities. Section 14 prohibits that no
development
of
the
land
shall
be
undertaken by any person or body unless
permission for such development has been
obtained in writing from the ViceChairman. Section 15 of the Act provides
the procedure for permission. Chapter VI
of the Act deals with acquisition and
disposal of the land. Chapter VII provides
for finance, accounts and audit. Chapter
VIII
provides
for
supplemental
and
miscellaneous
provisions.
Section
26
prescribes
the
penalties.
Section
27
provides for order for demolition of
building. Section 28-A gives power to seal
such buildings and Section 32 speaks for
composition
of
offences.
The
other
provisions under this Chapter deal with
assessment
of
betterment
charges,
additional stamp duty, toll for amenities,
mode of recovery. Section 41 enumerates
the power of control by the State
Government.

24. A perusal of Sections 8 and 9 of
the Act shows that the master plan and the
zonal
development
plans
are
inter
dependent. The master plan is a basic
pattern of the framework, which indicates
that a development area/ city shall be
divided in various zones and the manner in
which the land in each zone is proposed to
1778 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be used. Section 9 enjoins that the zonal
development plans shall be prepared
simultaneously with the master plan or as
soon as may be thereafter for the reason
that the master plan broadly lays down the
use of the land in each zone. It also
indicates the manner in which the land is
to be utilized in each zone. Thus, the
master plan only provides to define the
various zones, into which the development
area may be divided for the purpose of
development. It serves as basic pattern.
The other details such as industry,
business, markets, schools, hospitals, open
spaces, etc. are not provided in the master
plan but it is provided in the zonal
development plans. Thus, from the scheme
of the Act it is evident that the master plan
and the zonal development plans are
complimentary to each other. Without
zonal development plan the main object of
the provisions of the Act will be frustrated
as the open spaces, markets, residential
areas and other public works utilities are
not provided in the master plan. The zonal
development plan contains a site plan
which indicates the existence of the land
use proposed in the zone regarding
markets, business and housing, etc., but it
cannot change the manner indicated in the
master plan in each zone. If the master
plan indicates that a portion of the area has
to
be
utilized
for
residential
or
commercial, that cannot be altered in the
zonal development plan. In any view of
the matter, the zonal development plan
cannot override the master plan. The
development is to be done within the
manner indicated in the master plan.

25. Learned counsel for the PDA has
produced the Allahabad Master Plan-2021
and the Zonal Development Plan, Zone B4 prepared under the Master Plan-2021,
which have been taken on the record with
the consent of learned counsel for the
parties.

26. The current master plan for the
Allahabad/ Prayagraj has been approved
by the State Government under Section 12
of the Act on 13th July, 2006 and the
notice has been published stating therein
that the State Government has approved
the master plan and the plan has come into
operation.

27. The PDA in its Board meeting
dated 23rd July, 2003 proposed the Draft
Master Plan-2021 and the objections were
invited by public notice published in the
Northern India Patrika. The Board in its
meeting held on 13th October, 2005
finalized the Master Plan and it was sent
for approval to the State Government. In
the master plan, which is on the record, it
is clearly mentioned that in the last ten
years more than 50 land uses have been
changed by the development authority and
the matter has been referred to the State
Government. The change of the land use is
in respect of about 200-250 hectares,
which indicates that not only the PDA but
the private builders also have illegally and
unauthorisedly made the development
contrary to the master plan. The relevant
part of the Master Plan-2021 under its
Part-1, Paragraph '2.0 Mahayojna ka
Mulyankan' is extracted below:

"--- bl fo'ys"k.k ls ;g Li"V gS
fd u dsoy bykgkckn fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk
cfYd futh fcYMlZ@ dksyksukbtlZ }kjk Hkh
Hkw&mi;ksxksa ds foijhr vuf/kd`r fodkl fd;k
x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr orZeku ifjizs{; esa
bykgkckn iqujhf{kr
egk;kstuk&2001
ls
lEcaf/kr rF;ksa dk foLr`r foospu u;h
egk;kstuk cukus dk vkSfpR; lqLi"V djrk gS]
ftldk fooj.k v/kksfyf[kr izLrjksa esa fn;k
x;k gSA"
2 All. Rajendra Prasad Arora & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1779

28. In the master plan, Table No. 3.1
deals with comparison of land use in the
earlier Master Plan-2001 and the current
master plan. In the Master Plan-2001 the
total
proposed
area
was
21,689.53
hectares, out of which an area of 7622.24
hectares i.e. 35.14% of the total was
earmarked
for
residential
area;
the
commercial area was only 545.43 hectares
i.e. 2.51%; industrial area was 1217.81
hectares i.e. 5.61%; for office the area was
1871.09
hectares
i.e.
8.63%;
and
park/open space was 1541.40 hectares
(7.11%). For the sake of convenience,
Table No. 3.1 given at page-11 of the
Master Plan-2021 is reproduced below:

"rkfydk la[;k&3-1

iwoZ egk;kstuk esa izLrkfor ,oa orZeku
Hkw&mi;ksxksa dk

rqyukRed fooj.k

lEiw.kZ uxj {ks= {ks=Qy (

(gsDVs;j esa)

dz0
la0
Hkw&mi
;ksx
iwoZ
egk;kst
uk esa
izLrkfor
Hkw&mi;ks
x
o"kZ 2001
izfr'k
r
orZek
u Hkw&
mi;ks
x o"kZ
2002
1⁄4fodf
lr
{ks=1⁄2
izfr'k
r
vUrj
1⁄4vfodflr
{ks=1⁄2
izfr'k
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.

7622.2
4
35.1
4
583
1.46
61.9
1
-1790.78
-
14.5
9
2.
O;ko
lkf;
d
545.43 2.51 393.
68
4.18 -151.75
-
1.24
3.
m|ksx 1217.8
1
5.61 482.
80
5.13 -735.01
-
5.99
4.
dk;kZ
y;
1871.0
9
8.63 315.
44
3.35 -1555.65
-
12.6
8
d
dk;kZ
y;
335.09 1.54 315.
44
3.35
-19.65
0.16
[k
vifjH
kkf"kr
{ks=
1536.0
0
7.08
-
-
-1536.00
-
12.5
2
5.
ikdZ
@[kq
ys
LFky
1541.4
0
7.11 140.
14
1.49 -1401.26
-
11.4
2
6.
dqEHk
esyk
921.08 4.25
-
-
-921.08
-
7.51
7.
lkaLd`
frd
,oa
/kkfeZ
d
LFky
69.00 0.32 19.0
0
0.20
-50.00
-
0.41
8.
LkkoZ0
,oa
v)Z
lkoZ0
lqfo/kk
;sa
571.24 2.63 607.
84
6.45
36.60
0.30
d
f'k{kk 495.52 2.28 524.
60
5.57
29.08
0.24
[k
LokLF
;
75.72 0.35 83.2
4
0.88
7.52
0.06
9.
LkkoZ0
mi;ksf
xrk,a
,oa
lsok;sa
1660.3
5
7.66 39.3
7
0.42 -1621.16
-
13.2
1
10. ;krk;
kr
,oa
ifjog
u
2434.8
0
11.2
3
158
8.76
16.8
7
-840.04
-
6.89
11.
vU;
mi;ks
x
3234.9
1
14.9
1
-
-
-3234.91
-
26.3
6
;ksx
21689.
53
100.
00
941
8.49
(43.
42)
100.
00
12271.0
4
(56.58%
)
100.
"

29. Table No. 10.7 of the Master
Plan-2021 has divided the residential
area in the low density area, medium
density area and high density area.
Likewise, the commercial area has also
been
divided
in
retail
business,
wholesale business, district center,
warehouse, etc.

30. In the entire counter affidavit
filed on behalf of the PDA sworn by the
Zonal Officer it has not been mentioned
that when the Master Plan-2021 has been
1780 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
approved by the State Government nor the
date of commencement of the zonal
development plan has been mentioned.
However, to the specific query of the
Court, in the supplementary counter
affidavit it is mentioned that the State
Government has approved the Master
Plan-2021 on 13th July, 2006.

31. On 26th August, 2019 during the
course of hearing when the Court was
apprised that the Master Plan-2021 was
enforced in the year 2006 but the zonal
development plan is yet to be prepared, the
PDA was directed to file a better affidavit
indicating the following facts:

"After hearing learned counsel
for the parties we deem it appropriate to
direct the development authority to file an
affidavit indicating the following facts:

(1) If the Master Plan of the
Allahabad (now Prayagraj) has been
amended,
the
order
of
the
State
Government/ development authority be
brought on the record giving the detail of
the procedure adopted for the said
amendment.

(2) It is stated that the Zonal
Plan has been approved only in respect of
one zone i.e. Zone B-4(1). There are total
7 zones in Allahabad. Zone-B has five subzones. However, the Zonal Plan for one of
the sub-zones B-4 has been prepared.
Regard may be had to the fact that Section
9 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning
and Development Act, 1973 requires that
zonal
plan
should
be
prepared
simultaneously with the master plan or as
soon
as
possible.
The
respondentdevelopment authority shall furnish the
reason for the delay of more than five
years and shall also state that under which
Zonal Plan the maps in respect of the
residential and commercial areas have
been sanctioned between 2006, when the
Master Plan was notified, and 2011, when
the Zonal Plan for one of the sub-zones B4(1) has been notified. During this period
how the maps have been sanctioned in
absence of zonal plan?

(3) When the Zonal Plan in
respect of the entire city shall be
prepared?

(4) Learned counsel for the
development authority has apprised us
that the State Government vide various
Government orders has permitted the
change of the land use. All the orders of
the State Government changing the land
use be brought on the record.

The aforesaid facts be brought
on the record by way of a counter affidavit
sworn by the Vice-Chairman/ Secretary of
the development authority."

32. In compliance with the said
order, a supplementary counter affidavit
has been filed on behalf of the PDA sworn
by the Secretary of the PDA. In the
supplementary counter affidavit it is
mentioned that the Master Plan-2021,
which is in force, has been amended four
times i.e. on 11th July, 2011, 20th June,
2013, 30th June, 2015 and 01st May, 2018
after following the procedures. It is
mentioned in the supplementary affidavit
that by the amendment dated 11th July,
2011 the land use of the land contained in
Mauzas (Villages) Sulem Saray, Harwara
and Jayrampur, Tehsil Sadar, District
Allahabad have been changed from
Industrial (Kuteer Udyog) to Residential
(R-2). Similarly, by the amendment dated
20th June, 2013 also the land use has been
changed from agricultural to technical/
management
institution
and
by
the
amendment dated 30th June, 2015 the land
use has been changed from agricultural to
residential. Vide amendment dated 01st
2 All. Rajendra Prasad Arora & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1781
May, 2018 the land use has been changed
from
agricultural
to
educational
institutions/ technical institutions. It is also
mentioned that the current master plan was
prepared in 2006 and it is still in operation
till 2021.

33. It is further averred in the
supplementary counter affidavit that in
the Master Plan-2021 the city has been
divided into 12 zones. It is also averred
that the zones have been further
divided into sub-zones. Sub-Zone 4 is
having an area of 606.40 hectares.
However, the zonal development plan
could be prepared for only one subzone i.e. B-4, which has been approved
on 07th March, 2011. For the sake of
clarity,
Paragraph-13
of
the
supplementary
counter
affidavit
is
quoted below:

"13. That it is stated that the
present Master Plan 2021 has been
approved by the State Government on
13.07.2006. It is stated that though
there are 12 zones in which the city
has been divided however the zonal
development plan could be prepared on
only one sub-zone i.e. B-4 which has
been approved on 7.3.2011."

34. In Paragraph-18 of the
supplementary counter affidavit it is
stated that the zonal development plan
is highly technical process but still the
authority
is
under
process
for
completing
two
more
zonal
development plan of Zone- 'I' & 'J'.
Paragraph-18 of the supplementary
counter affidavit is also reproduced
below:

"18.
That
further
the
zonal plan which is highly technical
process but still the authority is under
process for completing two more zonal
development plan of zone 'I' & 'J'."

35. From the aforesaid averments
made in the supplementary counter
affidavit it is evident that although the
master plan has been sanctioned by the
State Government on 13th July, 2006,
the zonal development plan except for
one zone has not been prepared. Even
the only zonal development plan,
which
has
been
prepared,
was
approved on 07th March, 2011 i.e.
after about five years and in respect of
rest 11 zones there is no zonal
development plan of the development
area and all the development works are
carried out or are still in progress or
have
been
made
without
any
development plan since 2006 onwards
i.e. about 13 years.

36. Pertinently, in a public interest
litigation,
being
Public
Interest
Litigation (PIL) No. 67235 of 2014
(Ashok Kumar and others v. Nagar
Nigam Allahabad and others), the issue
with
regard
to
increased
commercialization in the residential areas
cropped up. A Division Bench of this
Court, after furnishing opportunity to the
respondents therein, vide order dated 01st
September,
2016
has
observed
that
approval of maps for construction of nonresidential buildings is given only on the
basis of width of the road and no impact
assessment
has
been
made
before
sanctioning of the map. It was mentioned
that while sanctioning a new project the
development authority has to consider the
viability and compatibility in the area in
question
and
whether
the
existing
municipal facility and infrastructure were
sufficient to warrant the creation of
additional commercial or mixed use
1782 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
establishment. In this regard certain
directions were issued to the development
authority. The relevant part of the order is
extracted below:

"...ADA had been required to
disclose
the
nature
of
the
impact
assessment study, which it undertook, if at
all, before the sanctioning of maps. The
impact assessment which was envisaged
by this Court was with respect to an
empirical exercise being undertaken by the
Authority while sanctioning a new project
bearing
in
mind
its
viability
and
compatibility in the area in question and
whether the existing municipal facilities
and infrastructure were sufficient to
warrant the creation of an additional
commercial or mixed use establishment.
An impact assessment of a new structure
cannot be said to have been achieved on
the back of mere NOC's being obtained
from
other
departments.
When
the
Authority proceeds to accord permission
to a particular plan, it is presumed to have
assessed the viability of the project coming
up in the area concerned. This would
necessarily entail a study with regard to
the number of additional units or persons
who would occupy the area, the additional
burden on existing infrastructure in the
area, whether the existing facilities would
sustain the creation of new buildings and
structures
and other
allied
aspects.
Unfortunately we note that no such
exercise is presently undertaken by the
ADA nor does such a study appear to
precede its decision to sanction a new
project. It was in the above backdrop that
we had called upon the ADA to disclose on
affidavit the reasons and justifications for
the proposed change of user of residential
pockets in the city to either commercial or
mixed use purposes.