High Court · 2025

petition was disposed of on 30.05.2023 with direction to the Vice Chairman, KDA to decide the representation of the petitioner. The Vice Chairman, KDA by order dated 19/22.03.2024 rejected the representation holding that the submission of the application for sanction of building plan in December 2022 indicates that the petitioner had not started the construction work within the time specified in Clause 2F of the lease deed. For the said reason, the status of the application of the petitioner for sanction of the building plan was shown as ‘Rejected’ on the on-line portal.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 19/22.03.2024 passed by Vice Chairman, KDA rejecting the representation preferred revision before the State Government under Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and 2 Development Act, 1973. The State Government vide order dated 03.09.2024 has allowed the revision observing that as per Clause 2F, the construction was to be completed by

13.10.2020, but even before the expiry of said period, lock- down was clamped because of Covid-19 since 20.03.2020. The period for completion of construction could be extended by Vice Chairman as per terms of lease-deed. Even otherwise, ‘non-construction’ charges could be levied under Section 18(4A) of the Act, only after expiry of five years. Accordingly, the matter has been remitted back to the Authority to re-consider the time extension application dated

21.10.2020 and the representation of the petitioner dated

12.06.2023. The petitioner, thereafter, filed another representation on 07.10.2024 before the Authority to waive the imposition of ‘non-construction’ charges and approve the building plan. The petitioner also filed a representation on

12.05.2025. Since, no decision has been taken on the representations, therefore, the instant petition has been filed praying for direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the representation dated 07.10.2024; to grant approval to the map of proposed primary school submitted on 21.12.2022 and to exclude the period from 21.12.2022 till the date of grant of approval of the building plan.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the revision of the petitioner having been allowed, the respondents are under obligation to exclude the covid period and sanction the building plan submitted in December 2022. 3

6. Shri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, Development Authority, on instructions, states that the status of the application of the building plan on the official portal is ‘Rejected’. He submits that in such circumstances, the petitioner should apply afresh for sanction of building plan.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the building plan is being shown on the official portal as ‘Auto-Rejected’ solely on account of the petitioner having not submitted no-objection certificate which was dependent upon the petitioner paying ‘non-construction’ charges. He submits that the revision of the petitioner has been allowed and the imposition of ‘non-construction’ charges has been set aside and direction has been issued to the Authority to extend the benefit of Covid-19 period and pass fresh order, therefore, the building plan would stand revived automatically.

8. Indisputably, there is no separate order for rejection of the building plan. The rejection was auto-generated on the portal apparently on account of the fact that the petitioner had not submitted no-objection certificate which itself was dependent upon the petitioner clearing the dues in respect of the ‘non- construction’ charges. As revision of the petitioner against imposition of ‘non-construction’ charges has been allowed and the Development Authority has been directed to pass a fresh order taking into account the observations made by the State Government, therefore, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the building plan would be treated to have been rejected. 4 As soon as the revision has been allowed, the building plan submitted earlier would stand revived and would call for fresh consideration in light of the observations made by the State Government while deciding the revision.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to pass order in light of the observations made by the State Government in its order dated 03.09.2024 while deciding the revision of the petitioner and also take appropriate decision in respect of the building plan submitted by the petitioner on 21.12.2022 within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the instant order. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Mukesh Kr. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5

petition was disposed of on 30.05.2023 with direction to the Vice Chairman, KDA to decide the representation of the petitioner. The Vice Chairman, KDA by order dated 19/22.03.2024 rejected the representation holding that the submission of the application for sanction of building plan in December 2022 indicates that the petitioner had not started the construction work within the time specified in Clause 2F of the lease deed. For the said reason, the status of the application of the petitioner for sanction of the building plan was shown as ‘Rejected’ on the on-line portal.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 19/22.03.2024 passed by Vice Chairman, KDA rejecting the representation preferred revision before the State Government under Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and 2 Development Act, 1973. The State Government vide order dated 03.09.2024 has allowed the revision observing that as per Clause 2F, the construction was to be completed by

13.10.2020, but even before the expiry of said period, lock- down was clamped because of Covid-19 since 20.03.2020. The period for completion of construction could be extended by Vice Chairman as per terms of lease-deed. Even otherwise, ‘non-construction’ charges could be levied under Section 18(4A) of the Act, only after expiry of five years. Accordingly, the matter has been remitted back to the Authority to re-consider the time extension application dated

21.10.2020 and the representation of the petitioner dated

12.06.2023. The petitioner, thereafter, filed another representation on 07.10.2024 before the Authority to waive the imposition of ‘non-construction’ charges and approve the building plan. The petitioner also filed a representation on

12.05.2025. Since, no decision has been taken on the representations, therefore, the instant petition has been filed praying for direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the representation dated 07.10.2024; to grant approval to the map of proposed primary school submitted on 21.12.2022 and to exclude the period from 21.12.2022 till the date of grant of approval of the building plan.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the revision of the petitioner having been allowed, the respondents are under obligation to exclude the covid period and sanction the building plan submitted in December 2022. 3

6. Shri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, Development Authority, on instructions, states that the status of the application of the building plan on the official portal is ‘Rejected’. He submits that in such circumstances, the petitioner should apply afresh for sanction of building plan.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the building plan is being shown on the official portal as ‘Auto-Rejected’ solely on account of the petitioner having not submitted no-objection certificate which was dependent upon the petitioner paying ‘non-construction’ charges. He submits that the revision of the petitioner has been allowed and the imposition of ‘non-construction’ charges has been set aside and direction has been issued to the Authority to extend the benefit of Covid-19 period and pass fresh order, therefore, the building plan would stand revived automatically.

8. Indisputably, there is no separate order for rejection of the building plan. The rejection was auto-generated on the portal apparently on account of the fact that the petitioner had not submitted no-objection certificate which itself was dependent upon the petitioner clearing the dues in respect of the ‘non- construction’ charges. As revision of the petitioner against imposition of ‘non-construction’ charges has been allowed and the Development Authority has been directed to pass a fresh order taking into account the observations made by the State Government, therefore, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the building plan would be treated to have been rejected. 4 As soon as the revision has been allowed, the building plan submitted earlier would stand revived and would call for fresh consideration in light of the observations made by the State Government while deciding the revision.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to pass order in light of the observations made by the State Government in its order dated 03.09.2024 while deciding the revision of the petitioner and also take appropriate decision in respect of the building plan submitted by the petitioner on 21.12.2022 within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the instant order. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Mukesh Kr. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5