High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel and Sri Sudeep Kumar and Ms. Meera Jain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.12.2024, whereby, the revision preferred by respondent no.4 was allowed and the order impugned in the said revision was set-aside.

3. The facts in brief are that the petitioners claim to be the co- owner of the property owned by coparceners. It is alleged that the coparceners had sold a part of the property to the respondent no.4, herein. In the said sale deed, the boundaries are also shown, which according to the petitioners cannot be done in view of the fact that there is no partition amongst the coparceners of the property. It is also on record that the suit filed by the petitioners against the other coparceners in respect of yet another sale deed allegedly executed by the coparceners. The respondent no.4 based upon the sale deed executed in her favour applied for raising constructions to the authority prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1958 Act"). Objections were raised by the petitioners with respect to the application of the respondent no.4 for grant of permission to raise constructions. On the said objection, an order came to be passed on 04.09.2023 rejecting the objection filed by the petitioners and further directions were issued for taking further steps in accordance with law on the application filed by the respondent no.4 for raising constructions. In pursuance to the said order dated 04.09.2023, an order came to be passed on 08.09.2023, sanctioning the map as submitted by the respondent no.4. It also appears from the record that against the order dated 04.09.2023, the petitioners preferred an appeal, however, no interim order was passed in their favour. Once again, against the order dated 08.09.2023, an appeal was preferred under Section 15(2) of the 1958 Act. In the said appeal, an order dated 22.09.2023 came to be passed staying the operation and effect of the order dated 08.09.2023. Against the order dated 22.09.2023, objection was filed by the respondent no.4, which also came to be rejected vide order dated 29.06.2023. The respondent no.4 approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.9575 of 2023. In the said writ petition, the learned Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that a revision could lie against the order impugned. In view of the said preliminary objection taken by the learned Counsel for the State, the parties were relegated to avail the remedy of revision vide order dated 01.11.2023 and in terms of the said order, the petitioners had preferred a revision. The revisional court by means of the impugned order dated 23.12.2024, prima facie, recorded that against the order dated 04.09.2023, an appeal is already pending and prima facie, an appeal against the order dated 08.09.2023 would not lie and as such, the order dated 22.09.2023 and the order dated 29.06.2024 have been quashed.

4. Challenging the said order dated 23.12.2024, the Counsel for the petitioners argues that the revision would not lie against an interlocutory order in terms of the language used under Section 15-A of the 1958 Act and thus, the revisional authority had erred in allowing the revision. He further argues and admits that with regard to the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent no.4, no suit as on date, has been filed. Only an application for impleadment has been filed in the earlier Suit No.103 of 2022, which is yet to be decided. He further argues that in terms of the mandate of Rule 12 of the Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Building Operations) Rules, 1958, particularly Rule 12 (v), it is incumbent upon the owner to submit the copy of the sale deed, based upon which, the permission is sought. He further argues that the principles for the grant or refusal of the building permit are contained in Rule 14, which make it incumbent upon the authority to satisfy about the title of the applicant over the land and the building as the case may be. He further argues that despite the said restrictions, the prescribed authority did not go into the specific fact that the respondents had no possession over the land, on which, the constructions are sought to be raised. He further argues that the word used "satisfy" about the title would include and empower the prescribed authority to prima facie record a view with regard to the correctness of the title and possession as the title over the land includes bundles of rights which includes possession also. In the light of the said, it is argued that the order impugned deserves to be quashed.

5. Sri Sudeep Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent controverted the arguments by arguing that the revision was preferred in pursuance to the directions given by this Court in its judgment dated 01.11.2023. He further argues that the petitioner is the owner of the property by virtue of a sale deed, wherein, the boundaries are disclosed. There are no cloud on the title of the petitioners nor has any suit being filed till date challenging the title deed. He further argues that the title deed itself recorded that the respondent no.4 was put in possession to which again there is no challenge. He further argues that the grant of permission is subject to the restrictions placed Rules 7 (2-A) of the 1958 Rules, which does not empower the prescribed authority to deny sanction except on the ground as prescribed under sub-Rule (2-A) of Rule 7. In the light of the said, he argues that the petition devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

6. In the light of the arguments referred above what emerges are that a sale deed was executed in favour of the respondent no.4 showing the boundaries. The sale deed also includes a recital that the respondent no.4 was put in possession. Till date despite a suit being pending, no cloud has been cast on the title or possession of the respondent no.4, in pursuance to any averments made by the petitioners so far, the relief as claimed by the petitioners before the regulatory authority is nothing but an efforts to bypass the civil remedy as available to the petitioners, which has not been availed till date as on date, there is no challenge to the title or possession of the respondent no.4 over the property in question.

7. The next submission of the Counsel for the petitioners that in terms of Rule 14, the prescribed authority is empowered to go into the issue with regard to the possession and can also deal the issue of title, in case there is a dispute. The said argument merits rejection as, the prescribed authority is neither empowered under the Act nor under any Rules to go into the issue of validity of title. If the title deeds are in favour of the person, who claims permission for raising constructions, the prescribed authority cannot be held to be having powers of civil court to decide the question of title.

8. Considering these facts, the attempt of the petitioners to somehow stop the constructions is nothing but bypassing the civil remedy that the petitioner could have availed and is said to have availed by filing an application under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. No relief as claimed by the petitioners would lie before the authority under the 1958 Act in the facts of the present case.

9. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 akverma ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel and Sri Sudeep Kumar and Ms. Meera Jain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.12.2024, whereby, the revision preferred by respondent no.4 was allowed and the order impugned in the said revision was set-aside.

3. The facts in brief are that the petitioners claim to be the co- owner of the property owned by coparceners. It is alleged that the coparceners had sold a part of the property to the respondent no.4, herein. In the said sale deed, the boundaries are also shown, which according to the petitioners cannot be done in view of the fact that there is no partition amongst the coparceners of the property. It is also on record that the suit filed by the petitioners against the other coparceners in respect of yet another sale deed allegedly executed by the coparceners. The respondent no.4 based upon the sale deed executed in her favour applied for raising constructions to the authority prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1958 Act"). Objections were raised by the petitioners with respect to the application of the respondent no.4 for grant of permission to raise constructions. On the said objection, an order came to be passed on 04.09.2023 rejecting the objection filed by the petitioners and further directions were issued for taking further steps in accordance with law on the application filed by the respondent no.4 for raising constructions. In pursuance to the said order dated 04.09.2023, an order came to be passed on 08.09.2023, sanctioning the map as submitted by the respondent no.4. It also appears from the record that against the order dated 04.09.2023, the petitioners preferred an appeal, however, no interim order was passed in their favour. Once again, against the order dated 08.09.2023, an appeal was preferred under Section 15(2) of the 1958 Act. In the said appeal, an order dated 22.09.2023 came to be passed staying the operation and effect of the order dated 08.09.2023. Against the order dated 22.09.2023, objection was filed by the respondent no.4, which also came to be rejected vide order dated 29.06.2023. The respondent no.4 approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.9575 of 2023. In the said writ petition, the learned Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that a revision could lie against the order impugned. In view of the said preliminary objection taken by the learned Counsel for the State, the parties were relegated to avail the remedy of revision vide order dated 01.11.2023 and in terms of the said order, the petitioners had preferred a revision. The revisional court by means of the impugned order dated 23.12.2024, prima facie, recorded that against the order dated 04.09.2023, an appeal is already pending and prima facie, an appeal against the order dated 08.09.2023 would not lie and as such, the order dated 22.09.2023 and the order dated 29.06.2024 have been quashed.

4. Challenging the said order dated 23.12.2024, the Counsel for the petitioners argues that the revision would not lie against an interlocutory order in terms of the language used under Section 15-A of the 1958 Act and thus, the revisional authority had erred in allowing the revision. He further argues and admits that with regard to the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent no.4, no suit as on date, has been filed. Only an application for impleadment has been filed in the earlier Suit No.103 of 2022, which is yet to be decided. He further argues that in terms of the mandate of Rule 12 of the Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Building Operations) Rules, 1958, particularly Rule 12 (v), it is incumbent upon the owner to submit the copy of the sale deed, based upon which, the permission is sought. He further argues that the principles for the grant or refusal of the building permit are contained in Rule 14, which make it incumbent upon the authority to satisfy about the title of the applicant over the land and the building as the case may be. He further argues that despite the said restrictions, the prescribed authority did not go into the specific fact that the respondents had no possession over the land, on which, the constructions are sought to be raised. He further argues that the word used "satisfy" about the title would include and empower the prescribed authority to prima facie record a view with regard to the correctness of the title and possession as the title over the land includes bundles of rights which includes possession also. In the light of the said, it is argued that the order impugned deserves to be quashed.

5. Sri Sudeep Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent controverted the arguments by arguing that the revision was preferred in pursuance to the directions given by this Court in its judgment dated 01.11.2023. He further argues that the petitioner is the owner of the property by virtue of a sale deed, wherein, the boundaries are disclosed. There are no cloud on the title of the petitioners nor has any suit being filed till date challenging the title deed. He further argues that the title deed itself recorded that the respondent no.4 was put in possession to which again there is no challenge. He further argues that the grant of permission is subject to the restrictions placed Rules 7 (2-A) of the 1958 Rules, which does not empower the prescribed authority to deny sanction except on the ground as prescribed under sub-Rule (2-A) of Rule 7. In the light of the said, he argues that the petition devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

6. In the light of the arguments referred above what emerges are that a sale deed was executed in favour of the respondent no.4 showing the boundaries. The sale deed also includes a recital that the respondent no.4 was put in possession. Till date despite a suit being pending, no cloud has been cast on the title or possession of the respondent no.4, in pursuance to any averments made by the petitioners so far, the relief as claimed by the petitioners before the regulatory authority is nothing but an efforts to bypass the civil remedy as available to the petitioners, which has not been availed till date as on date, there is no challenge to the title or possession of the respondent no.4 over the property in question.

7. The next submission of the Counsel for the petitioners that in terms of Rule 14, the prescribed authority is empowered to go into the issue with regard to the possession and can also deal the issue of title, in case there is a dispute. The said argument merits rejection as, the prescribed authority is neither empowered under the Act nor under any Rules to go into the issue of validity of title. If the title deeds are in favour of the person, who claims permission for raising constructions, the prescribed authority cannot be held to be having powers of civil court to decide the question of title.

8. Considering these facts, the attempt of the petitioners to somehow stop the constructions is nothing but bypassing the civil remedy that the petitioner could have availed and is said to have availed by filing an application under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. No relief as claimed by the petitioners would lie before the authority under the 1958 Act in the facts of the present case.

9. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 akverma ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench