# Satish Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 640
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-03-05
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24469 of 2012
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Vivek Kumar Birla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satish-kumar-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-42873
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Urban Planning Development Act-1973Section
13-petitioner
representationrejected on ground-the plot in question
ermarked for park-after inviting objectionpublished under public notice-petitioner did
not choose to file any objection-after 6
years representation about alteration duly
approved-can not be entertained-petition
dismissed.

Held: Para-9
Sri Sharma is correct to this extent and
location or relocation cannot be altered
without any procedure being followed in
this regard, but in the instant case the
alteration which is permissible under the
provisions of 1973 Act has been carried out
after due public notice in the newspapers.
The petitioner claims to be ignorant about
such
notice.
A
public
notice
in
the
newspapers cannot be discarded as such
allegations. Admittedly, the petitioner did
not file any objection in relation to the
proposed alteration in the Master Plan.

Case Law discussed:
AIR 1991 SC 1902; AIR 1993 Allahabad 57.

## Text

640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. In a cases pertaining to the
enactment of a particular law or policy, the
Court would not be justified in issuing a writ
of mandamus directing that the law should be
amended. A mandamus to that effect cannot
be issued by the High Court under Article 226
of the Constitution. No direction can be issued
to a legislative body to enact a law or to
amend an existing law. The alternate reliefs
which have been sought in the petition are all
basically matters of legislative policy. The
Election Commission of India, which is
vested with the authority under Article 324 of
the Constitution of superintendence, direction
and control over elections, has formulated its
suggestions for electoral reforms. The matter
must rest there, insofar as this Court is
concerned. We find no reason to entertain the
petition or to accept the submission that
Section 33 (7) and Section 70 of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 are
contrary to Article 101 of the Constitution.
We also decline to entertain the other reliefs
which have been pressed in the alternate.

16. The petition is, accordingly,
dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP
SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24469 of 2012

Satish Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, Sri U.N.
Sharma
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, Sri Piyush
Shukla

Urban Planning Development Act-1973Section
13-petitioner
representationrejected on ground-the plot in question
ermarked for park-after inviting objectionpublished under public notice-petitioner did
not choose to file any objection-after 6
years representation about alteration duly
approved-can not be entertained-petition
dismissed.

Held: Para-9
Sri Sharma is correct to this extent and
location or relocation cannot be altered
without any procedure being followed in
this regard, but in the instant case the
alteration which is permissible under the
provisions of 1973 Act has been carried out
after due public notice in the newspapers.
The petitioner claims to be ignorant about
such
notice.
A
public
notice
in
the
newspapers cannot be discarded as such
allegations. Admittedly, the petitioner did
not file any objection in relation to the
proposed alteration in the Master Plan.

Case Law discussed:
AIR 1991 SC 1902; AIR 1993 Allahabad 57.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)

1. Heard Dr. Akhilesh Kumar
Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner
and perused the counter affidavit filed by
the respondent-authority.

2. The petitioner has come up
questioning the order passed by the Agra
Development
Authority,
Agra
dated
3.4.2012 whereby his representation has
been rejected on the ground that the land in
dispute over which the petitioner alleges to
have
raised
constructions,
has
been
earmarked as a park and also for other
2 All] Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
641
purposes under the Master Plan which now
stands revised after the approval of the
Zonal Plan. The same has been approved by
the State Government as per the provisions
under Section 13 of the U.P. Urban
Planning and Development Act, 1973.

3. The finding recorded is that with
regard to alteration in the user of the land was
proposed under a public notice which was
published in hindi dailies "Dainik Jagran" and
"Amar Ujjala" in the year 2006, whereafter
objections were invited. The petitioner did not
choose to file any objections to the said public
notice whereafter the Zonal Plan was approved
and sent to the State Government, which has
been finalised taking the shape of Agra
Development Authority Master Plan 2021.

4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the
representation of the petitioner has been
rejected holding that the land in question has
already been reserved for a park and a part of
the said land is also shown in the road
widening plan of Master Plan 2021.

5. The constructions, which have
been raised by the petitioner, do not
appear to have been made after any due
sanction of a map or a plan by the
respondent- Development Authority. In
such circumstances, there being no
challenge raised to the competence of the
State Government in changing the Master
Plan or approving the Zonal Plan, no such
relief can be granted to the petitioner as
prayed for which is only for quashing of
the order dated 3.4.2012.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that certain change land user has
been permitted on which the finding
recorded is that two wrongs cannot make
a right. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has been unable to point out any such
provision under which such alteration of
user can now be permitted by this Court
after the Master Plan has already been
finalised and published.

7. Sri Sharma then contends that in
view of the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Bangalore Medical
Trust vs. S. Muddappa and others AIR
1991 SC 1902 and the Division Bench
Judgement of this Court in the case of
D.D. Vyas and others vs. Ghaziabad
Development
Authority
AIR
1993
Allahabad 57, the location of the park
cannot be altered.

8. Learned counsel submits even
otherwise there was land available with
the authority to relocate the park for
which certain suggestions has been made.

9. Sri Sharma is correct to this
extent and location or relocation cannot
be altered without any procedure being
followed in this regard, but in the
instant case the alteration which is
permissible under the provisions of
1973 Act has been carried out after due
public notice in the newspapers. The
petitioner claims to be ignorant about
such notice. A public notice in the
newspapers cannot be discarded as such
allegations. Admittedly, the petitioner
did not file any objection in relation to
the proposed alteration in the Master
Plan.

10. In these circumstances, this
petition, which has been filed in 2012 after
642 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
six years of the alteration of the Master Plan
in the year 2006-2007 cannot be entertained.
Even otherwise no other ground has been
raised to challenge the Master Plan, which is
a Legislative Act.

11. Consequently, we do not find
any merit in this petition.

12. The writ petition is, accordingly,
rejected.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.05.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.
THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 24999 of
2013

Shila Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.K. Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Sri V.C. Mishra (Advocate General)

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-197Sanction for prosecution-offence under
Section 306,506,323, ILO-B IPC against
police personal-on direction of High CourtC.B.C.I.D. Completed investigation found
those police persons involved-applied for
sanction accompanied with investigation
report-after 6 month by impugned orderrejection on ground no possibility of
conviction-held-such opinion-tailor made
to suit the police officers involved-ignoring
the impact of High Court direction-order
quashed with direction to pass fresh order
in accordance with law keeping in view of
direction of High Court.

Held: Para-15
We have no hesitation to record that
such reports, which do not even take
into consideration as to what has been
found and recorded by the C.B.C.I.D in
its
report
seeking
prosecution,
is
patently unjust. The opinion appears to
be tailor-made to suit only the interest of
the police officers involved. Even the
order
of
the
High
Court
dated
22.07.2011 and its impact has gone
unnoticed in
the report of Special
Secretary
(Law)
&
Addl.
Legal
Remembrances, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow.

Case Law discussed:
(2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 515.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Heard P. K. Upadhyay, counsel
for the petitioner and V. C. Mishra,
Advocate General on behalf of the State
as well as other respondent authorities.

2. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order
dated
23.05.2013
passed
by
Principal
Secretary, Home, Government of U. P.,
Lucknow whereby he has refused to grant
sanction for prosecution of three police
personnel in Case Crime No.829 of 2010
under Sections 306, 506, 323, 120 B IPC.

3. Facts in short as on record of the
present writ petition are as follows :

FIR being Case Crime No.829 of
2010, under Sections 306, 506, 323, 120
B IPC, P. S.Kerakat, District-Jaunpur was
registered on 20.10.2010, by Smt. Shila,
mother of the deceased Yogendra Kumar.
In the FIR it was mentioned that her son
Yogendra Kumar was forced to commit
suicide because of the undue pressures
brought upon him by his accused wife as
well as by constables Prabhu Nath Ram,