TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding bye-laws and directions and terms and conditions in the lease deed which act prejudicially affected the proper planning and amenities of the industrial development area which was against interest of general public. Therefore, appellant was required to remove the unauthorized construction within a period of 15 days and bring the construction in conformity with the sanctioned plan so that interest of the general public was not adversely affected. It was subsequently pointed out that the appellant was not using the ground floor as per the rules and conditions imposed. It was also mentioned that in the event the appellant failed to do the needful, NOIDA was to get the illegal construction removed at the cost of the appellant. Since there was no compliance with the direction, another notice dated 23.8.2004 was sent to the appellant. He was again required to comply with the directions contained in the earlier notice as the ground floor and service floor were not being used as per the conditions of the lease deed. Reply dated 23.9.2004 was submitted by the appellant. It was pointed out that the appellant had completed the construction on 9.10.1992 and completion certificate was is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is submitted that construction was completed in 1990. The completion certificate was issued on 19.4.1993. The representations were made on 11.5.1993 and 5.7.1993. In 1995-96 a new scheme with fresh policy was introduced which was made applicable to all adjoining plots P-3, P-4, P-5 and P-6. Additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 2, 3 and 4, inter alia, stating that on 29.6.2004, the Chairman of the Industrial Committee vide communication to the Chief Secretary, Industrial Development, Government of U.P., and others informed that irregularities have been committed by NOIDA during the period from 20.5.2002 to 29.8.2003 in the construction of the plot nos.P-5 and P-6. Further action has also been taken against allottees in respect of plot nos.P-5 and P-6 for violating the norms/conditions of the allotment/lease. It is also stated that the notice has been issued/is being issued to find out the irregularities, if any, committed in respect of other plots. 9. When the representation was made by the appellant in 1993 there was no policy in question. In fact, the change of policy came subsequently. The authorities may have acted in an irregular manner in c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after obtaining completion certificate, without getting necessary permission and sanction from the Authority. 6. (c)(i) The Ground floor (of the building constructed on the allotted commercial office plot) will be exclusively used for parking and no temporary or permanent construction of any sort would be allowed in any circumstances. 6. (c)(ii) Construction of basement is optional and if constructed shall be as per architectural control drawings and building plans approved by the Authority. The basement shall be strictly used for services and storage purpose. 6. (c)(iii) No barricade or boundary wall will be permitted on any side on the plot and there will be free access from one plot to another on the ground floor. 6. (c)(iv) The first floor of the building constructed on the allotted plot will be used for showroom cumoffice only. 6. (c)(v) The remaining upper floor\022s constructed will be exclusively used for offices only and for no other purpose. 6. (c)(vi) The area on each floor includes area of balcony also. No projection on any side will be allowed beyond proposed plot line. (Emphasis Supplied) 11. Subsequently the lease deed dated 8th A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h a contention as sought to be advanced in the present case by observing:- Only because some advantages would ensue to the people in general by reason of the proposed development, the same would not mean that the ecology of the place would be sacrificed. Only because some encroachments have been made and unauthorised buildings have been constructed, the same by itself cannot be a good ground for allowing other constructional activities to come up which would be in violation of the provisions of the Act. Illegal encroachments, if any, may be removed in accordance with law. It is trite law that there is no equality in illegality. 13. This view also finds support from the judgments of the this Court in Snehprabha v. State of U.P. Ors., (AIR 1996 SC 540); Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jam Ors., (1997 (1) SCC 35), State of Haryana Ors. v. Ram Kumar Mann, (1997 (3) SCC 321), and Faridabad C.T. Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services Ors. (1997 (7) SCC 752). 14. In Finance Commissioner (Revenue) v. Gulab Chandra Anr. (2001 AIR SCW 4774) this Court rejected the contention that as other similarly situated persons had been retained in service, p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
