Om Prakash Gautam v. Counsel for

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that while passing the order impugned the respondent authority has taken a ground that no such objection has been filed by the petitioner well within time, whereas the petitioner has already filed his objection to the show cause notice on

11.06.2025. Without considering the objection of the petitioner, the order impugned has been passed, which is also against the principles of natural justice. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak Vs. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262 in which it was held that an unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more fair reaching effect and the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice.

6. The relief is resisted by learned counsel for the respondent authority on the premise that even the claim, as has been set up in the light of the Bye- laws, 2025, would not help the petitioner. The extensive procedure is given in Para 2.1.2 of the Bye-laws, 2025, provided the restriction shall be that all provisions of master plan, zonal plan and building bye-laws, have been followed. Even the applicant needs to register online with a token amount of Rs.1/- and duly self certifying his title, the size of the plot and floors, it shall 3 WRIC No. 35048 of 2025 also not require a completion certificate. He submits that nothing is brought on record that as per Bye-laws, 2025 the petitioner has got registered online with a token amount of Rs.1/-. He submits that even the factual aspect, whether the size of the plot is less than 30 square meters, can also be examined by the Appellate Authority. He submits that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of efficacious alternative remedy as available under Section 27 (2) of the Act, 1973.

7. Heard rival submissions and perused the record.

8. The entire claim has been set up on the ground that the area of the petitioner's plot is 22.39 sq. mtr. and as such, under the Bye-laws, 2025 the petitioner is not required to obtain any such permission. In order to consider the rival submissions, it is apt to re-produce the relevant provision contained in Bye-laws, 2025:- "2.1.2 Building Permission No person shall erect, re-erect or make addition/ alterations/ revisions in any plot/building or cause the same to be done without obtaining a prior building permission from the Authority. (i) No piece of land shall be used as a site for the construction of a building, and no building shall be constructed or reconstructed, and no addition or alteration shall be made to an existing building without the self certification based declarations or the required approval in the manner specified herein, relating to the use of building sites or the construction or reconstruction of buildings. (ii) For plots of size upto 100 square meters for residential purpose and plots of size up to 30 square meters for commercial purpose will not require any permission, except in the mela area declared under the Uttar Pradesh Melas Act, 1938 and plots in unauthoritized layouts/ colonies. Provided the restriction shall be that all provisions of master plan, zonal plan and building byelaws, have been followed. The applicant however needsto register online with a token amount of Rs.1/- and duly self certifying his title, the size of the plot and floors, it shall also not require a completion certificate. Any plot bigger than 100 square meters cannot be split for this purpose or this provision cannot be misused for taking up constructions in government or prohibited or disputed land. An online mechanism shall be developed for submission of a self-declaration in a prescribed format and an affidavit. A certificate of acceptance shall be generated automatically on submission, which shall serve as a certification from the Authority. The onus to ensure authenticity of self-certification and compliance with the self-certification lies with the applicant, who shall be held personally accountable and liable in case of false declaration and action shall be initiated against the said person, as specified" 4 WRIC No. 35048 of 2025

9. We find that to streamline construction activities and promote planned growth, the State Government introduced the Bye-Laws 2025 and these bye- laws simplify the building approval process, encourage sustainable development, and ensure alignment with the state’s Master Plan. The Bye- laws, 2025 introduce reforms like exemption from map approval for small residential and commercial plots. The plot of size upto 30 square meters for commercial purpose will not require any permission, provided the restriction shall be that all provisions of master plan, zonal plan and building byelaws, have been followed. In the instant matter, nothing is brought on record to suggest that the construction, which was carried out by the petitioner over the disputed land, falls in the plan as per the Master Plan/Zonal Development Plan. The petitioner is inclined to carry out commercial activity over the disputed plot and for that purpose, the petitioner needs to be registered online with a token amount of Rs.1/- and duly self certifying his title, the size of the plot and floors. No person shall carry out any development on any plot or land or cause to be done without obtaining a prior development permission of the authority. No such permission shall be given in contravention of the Master Plan/Zonal Development Plan. For plots of size upto 100 square meters for residential purpose and plots of size upto 30 square meters for commercial purpose will not require any permission with a rider that the applicant needs to register online with a token amount of Rs.1/-.

10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Of India Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 SCC 588, has pointed out: "The concept of natural justice has existed for many centuries and it has crystallized into two rules: that no man should be judge in his own cause; and that no man should suffer without first being given a fair hearing....They (the courts) have been developing and extending the principles of natural justice so as to build up a kind of code of fair administrative procedure, to be obeyed by authorities of all kinds. They have done this once again, by assuming that Parliament always intends powers to be exercised fairly" 11. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 818, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "Rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. Being means to an end and not an end in themselves, it is not possible to make an exhaustive catalogue of such rules. But there are two fundamental maxims of natural justice vis. (i) audi alteram partem, and (ii) nemo judex in re sua. The audi alterm partem rule has many facets, two of them being (a) notice of the case to be met; and (b) opportunity to explain. This rule cannot be sacrificed at the alter of administrative convenience or celerity. The general principles as distinguished from an absolute rule of uniform application seems to be that where a statute does not, in terms, exclude this rule of prior hearing but 5 WRIC No. 35048 of 2025 contemplates a post decisional hearing amounting to a full review of the original order on merits, then such a statute would be construed as excluding the audi alteram partem rule at the pre-decisional stage. Conversely if the statute conferring the power is silent with regard to the giving of a pre-decisional hearing to the person affected and the administrative decision taken by the authority involves civil consequences of a grave nature, and no full view or appeal on merits against that decision is provided, courts will be extremely reluctant to construe such a statute as excluding the duty of affording even a minimal hearing, shorn of all its formal trappings and dilatory features at the pre-decisional stage, unless, viewed pragmatically, it would paralyse the administrative process or frustrate the need for utmost promptitude. In short, this rule of fair play must not be jettisoned save in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands. The court must make every effort to salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent possible, with situational modifications. But, the core of it must, however, remain, namely, that the person affected must have reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise."

12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association Vs. Designated Authority (2011) 2 SCC 258 held about the natural justice in following terms: "It is thus, well settled that unless a statutory provision, either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of principles of natural justice, because in that event the court would not ignore the legislative mandate, the requirement of giving reasonable opportunity of being heard before an order is made, is generally read into the provisions of a statute, particularly when the order has adverse civil consequences which obviously cover infraction of property, personal rights and material deprivations for the party affected. The principle holds good irrespective of whether the power conferred on a statutory body or Tribunal is administrative or quasi judicial. It is equally trite that the concept of natural justice can neither be put in a straitjacket nor is it a general rule of universal application."

13. The object underlying the rules of natural justice "is to prevent miscarriage of justice" and secure "fairplay in action." As pointed out earlier the requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. No doubt, the extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework whereunder jurisdiction has been 6 WRIC No. 35048 of 2025 conferred on the administrative authority. With regard to the exercise of a particular power by an administrative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions the legislature, while conferring the said power, may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order passed by the administrative authority be recorded in the order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement.

14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the objection of the petitioner is to be considered in accordance with law and in case the petitioner is inclined to carry out any development, he must take a recourse as per Bye-laws, 2025 within two weeks' time. The impugned order dated 31.08.2025 and notice dated 02.09.2025 are set aside.

15. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed. October 7, 2025 RKP (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) RAKESH KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that while passing the order impugned the respondent authority has taken a ground that no such objection has been filed by the petitioner well within time, whereas the petitioner has already filed his objection to the show cause notice on

11.06.2025. Without considering the objection of the petitioner, the order impugned has been passed, which is also against the principles of natural justice. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak Vs. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262 in which it was held that an unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more fair reaching effect and the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice.

6. The relief is resisted by learned counsel for the respondent authority on the premise that even the claim, as has been set up in the light of the Bye- laws, 2025, would not help the petitioner. The extensive procedure is given in Para 2.1.2 of the Bye-laws, 2025, provided the restriction shall be that all provisions of master plan, zonal plan and building bye-laws, have been followed. Even the applicant needs to register online with a token amount of Rs.1/- and duly self certifying his title, the size of the plot and floors, it shall 3 WRIC No. 35048 of 2025 also not require a completion certificate. He submits that nothing is brought on record that as per Bye-laws, 2025 the petitioner has got registered online with a token amount of Rs.1/-. He submits that even the factual aspect, whether the size of the plot is less than 30 square meters, can also be examined by the Appellate Authority. He submits that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of efficacious alternative remedy as available under Section 27 (2) of the Act, 1973.

7. Heard rival submissions and perused the record.

8. The entire claim has been set up on the ground that the area of the petitioner's plot is 22.39 sq. mtr. and as such, under the Bye-laws, 2025 the petitioner is not required to obtain any such permission. In order to consider the rival submissions, it is apt to re-produce the relevant provision contained in Bye-laws, 2025:- "2.1.2 Building Permission No person shall erect, re-erect or make addition/ alterations/ revisions in any plot/building or cause the same to be done without obtaining a prior building permission from the Authority. (i) No piece of land shall be used as a site for the construction of a building, and no building shall be constructed or reconstructed, and no addition or alteration shall be made to an existing building without the self certification based declarations or the required approval in the manner specified herein, relating to the use of building sites or the construction or reconstruction of buildings. (ii) For plots of size upto 100 square meters for residential purpose and plots of size up to 30 square meters for commercial purpose will not require any permission, except in the mela area declared under the Uttar Pradesh Melas Act, 1938 and plots in unauthoritized layouts/ colonies. Provided the restriction shall be that all provisions of master plan, zonal plan and building byelaws, have been followed. The applicant however needsto register online with a token amount of Rs.1/- and duly self certifying his title, the size of the plot and floors, it shall also not require a completion certificate. Any plot bigger than 100 square meters cannot be split for this purpose or this provision cannot be misused for taking up constructions in government or prohibited or disputed land. An online mechanism shall be developed for submission of a self-declaration in a prescribed format and an affidavit. A certificate of acceptance shall be generated automatically on submission, which shall serve as a certification from the Authority. The onus to ensure authenticity of self-certification and compliance with the self-certification lies with the applicant, who shall be held personally accountable and liable in case of false declaration and action shall be initiated against the said person, as specified" 4 WRIC No. 35048 of 2025

9. We find that to streamline construction activities and promote planned growth, the State Government introduced the Bye-Laws 2025 and these bye- laws simplify the building approval process, encourage sustainable development, and ensure alignment with the state’s Master Plan. The Bye- laws, 2025 introduce reforms like exemption from map approval for small residential and commercial plots. The plot of size upto 30 square meters for commercial purpose will not require any permission, provided the restriction shall be that all provisions of master plan, zonal plan and building byelaws, have been followed. In the instant matter, nothing is brought on record to suggest that the construction, which was carried out by the petitioner over the disputed land, falls in the plan as per the Master Plan/Zonal Development Plan. The petitioner is inclined to carry out commercial activity over the disputed plot and for that purpose, the petitioner needs to be registered online with a token amount of Rs.1/- and duly self certifying his title, the size of the plot and floors. No person shall carry out any development on any plot or land or cause to be done without obtaining a prior development permission of the authority. No such permission shall be given in contravention of the Master Plan/Zonal Development Plan. For plots of size upto 100 square meters for residential purpose and plots of size upto 30 square meters for commercial purpose will not require any permission with a rider that the applicant needs to register online with a token amount of Rs.1/-.

10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Of India Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 SCC 588, has pointed out: "The concept of natural justice has existed for many centuries and it has crystallized into two rules: that no man should be judge in his own cause; and that no man should suffer without first being given a fair hearing....They (the courts) have been developing and extending the principles of natural justice so as to build up a kind of code of fair administrative procedure, to be obeyed by authorities of all kinds. They have done this once again, by assuming that Parliament always intends powers to be exercised fairly" 11. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 818, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "Rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. Being means to an end and not an end in themselves, it is not possible to make an exhaustive catalogue of such rules. But there are two fundamental maxims of natural justice vis. (i) audi alteram partem, and (ii) nemo judex in re sua. The audi alterm partem rule has many facets, two of them being (a) notice of the case to be met; and (b) opportunity to explain. This rule cannot be sacrificed at the alter of administrative convenience or celerity. The general principles as distinguished from an absolute rule of uniform application seems to be that where a statute does not, in terms, exclude this rule of prior hearing but 5 WRIC No. 35048 of 2025 contemplates a post decisional hearing amounting to a full review of the original order on merits, then such a statute would be construed as excluding the audi alteram partem rule at the pre-decisional stage. Conversely if the statute conferring the power is silent with regard to the giving of a pre-decisional hearing to the person affected and the administrative decision taken by the authority involves civil consequences of a grave nature, and no full view or appeal on merits against that decision is provided, courts will be extremely reluctant to construe such a statute as excluding the duty of affording even a minimal hearing, shorn of all its formal trappings and dilatory features at the pre-decisional stage, unless, viewed pragmatically, it would paralyse the administrative process or frustrate the need for utmost promptitude. In short, this rule of fair play must not be jettisoned save in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands. The court must make every effort to salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent possible, with situational modifications. But, the core of it must, however, remain, namely, that the person affected must have reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise."

12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association Vs. Designated Authority (2011) 2 SCC 258 held about the natural justice in following terms: "It is thus, well settled that unless a statutory provision, either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of principles of natural justice, because in that event the court would not ignore the legislative mandate, the requirement of giving reasonable opportunity of being heard before an order is made, is generally read into the provisions of a statute, particularly when the order has adverse civil consequences which obviously cover infraction of property, personal rights and material deprivations for the party affected. The principle holds good irrespective of whether the power conferred on a statutory body or Tribunal is administrative or quasi judicial. It is equally trite that the concept of natural justice can neither be put in a straitjacket nor is it a general rule of universal application."

13. The object underlying the rules of natural justice "is to prevent miscarriage of justice" and secure "fairplay in action." As pointed out earlier the requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. No doubt, the extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework whereunder jurisdiction has been 6 WRIC No. 35048 of 2025 conferred on the administrative authority. With regard to the exercise of a particular power by an administrative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions the legislature, while conferring the said power, may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order passed by the administrative authority be recorded in the order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement.

14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the objection of the petitioner is to be considered in accordance with law and in case the petitioner is inclined to carry out any development, he must take a recourse as per Bye-laws, 2025 within two weeks' time. The impugned order dated 31.08.2025 and notice dated 02.09.2025 are set aside.

15. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed. October 7, 2025 RKP (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) RAKESH KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad