Surendra Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Court
Allahabad High Court

A.F.R.
Reserved on 28.04.2026
Delivered on 25.05.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT – C No. - 36811 of 2024
Surendra Pal Singh …..Petitioners(s)
Versus
…..Respondents(s)
State Of U.P.
And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Vinod Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Jagannath Maurya, Abhijit
Chatterji, Aman Arya, Ashish
Kumar Singh, C.S.C., Diptiman
Singh, Manish Dubey, Shiv Prakash
Gupta, Swetashwa Agarwal
Court No. - 21
HON’BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON’BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
(Per : Hon’ble Kunal Ravi Singh, J.)
[1] Heard Sri S.D. Singh and Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsels for
the petitioner, Sri Ajit Singh Rana, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
respondent No. 1 and Sri Sri J.N. Maurya along with Sri Shiv Prakash Gupta,
learned counsels for respondent No. 2 to 5 and Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Diptiman Singh, learned counsel for respondent
No. 6. Learned counsel for the respective parties have filed their written
submissions, which are taken on record.
[2] The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :-
“(i) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing
the impugned order dated 01.06.2024 passed by Secretary, Meerut Development

(2)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
Authority, Meerut and 16.08.2024 passed by Chief Town Planner, M.D.A.,
Meerut (Annexure No.1 to this writ petition).
(ii) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondent authorities not to give effect to the impugned order
referred to above and stay its effect and operation and all further proceedings
consequent thereupon during the pendency of the writ petition.
(iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award cost of petition in favour of the petitioner.”
FACTS :
[3] The present dispute relates to plot no. B-167 situated at Saket, District -
Meerut admeasuring 1500 sqm whose owner is respondent no. 6. The genesis
of the dispute is the construction permission granted by Meerut Development
1
Authority from residential use to development of a Nursing Home.
[4] The land was initially acquired by The Meerut Housing Cooperative
2
Society Ltd. by means of Gazette dated 12.02.1949. The Society thereafter
converted the acquired land into plots for sale to its members. Ultimately the
said plot came to be sold to the respondent no. 6 by means of a sale deed dated
24.01.1985.
[5] The respondent no. 6, who became the owner and in possession of the
Plot No. B-167, made an online application dated 16.04.2019 for sanction of
map for commercial/ Nursing Home over the said plot under Section 15(1) of
the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Act, 1973’). The said application being registered as
MAP20190416171344243, came to be rejected by the Authority on 20.07.2019
3
due to lack of essential No Objection Certificates . The rejection order was
communicated to respondent no. 6 by means of letter dated 08.08.2023.
[6] Thereafter, the respondent no. 6 again filed an online application dated
01.10.2020 for sanction of map for the purpose of residential construction over
the said plot. The said application bearing no. MDA/BP/20-21/0076, was
allowed on 28.01.2021 with certain conditions. Before the application was filed,

the respondent no. 6 had obtained NOC from the Society on 17.07.2020.
1
Authority
2
Society
3
NOC

(3)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
[7] The petitioner thereafter made various complaints to different
authorities with regard to violation of the sanctioned map. The initial grievance
of the petitioner was mainly on the ground that the construction being carried
out was in violation of the sanctioned map.
[8] In pursuance of the complaint filed by the petitioner that the
construction, being carried out in violation of the sanctioned maps, the show
cause notice under Section 26, 27 and 28 of the Act, 1973 was issued to
respondent no. 6 and thereafter by means of an order dated 07.07.2023, the
construction was sealed under the orders of the Authority.
[9] In the meantime, an application was filed by the son of the respondent
no. 6 to the Additional Housing Commissioner, Lucknow on the ground that the
NOC has not been provided by the Society despite the fact that several
commercial activities were being carried out in the Society. The application
came to be allowed by means of order dated 31.10.2023 granting NOC to the
respondent no.6 for commercial activities. The order dated 31.10.2023 was
challenged before co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Surendra Pal Singh vs.
4
State of U.P. and others . The said writ petition was allowed by means of order
dated 19.03.2024 and the order dated 31.10.2023 was set aside by this Court.
[10] The respondent no. 6 thereafter, filed an application dated 02.12.2023
for compounding the map sanctioned on 28.01.2021 from residential to nursing
home. A reminder dated 19.12.2023 was also sent to the Authority with the same
prayer.
[11] The respondent no. 6 on 14.02.2024 made another request for changing
the land use from residential to nursing home on the basis of Government
5
Order dated 13.10.1998. In the said application it was prayed that the land use
be converted and thereafter the compounding with regard to the construction be
done.
[12] In pursuance of the Government Order dated 13.10.1998,
advertisements dated 09.03.2024 were made in the daily newspapers with
regard to land use conversion from residential to nursing home. Objections were
invited within a period of one month from the date of publication. In pursuance
4
Writ C No. 3619 of 2024
5
G.O.

(4)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
of the publications, a single objection of the petitioner was received by the
Authority dated 23.03.2024. A notice dated 09.05.2024 was issued to the
petitioner for a hearing on the objections.
[13] Ultimately by means of order dated 01.06.2024, the Authority rejected
the objection of the petitioner. The relevant extract of the order dated
01.06.2024 is as follows :
" / /
उभय पक्षों द्वारा प्रस्तुत अभिकथनों तर्कों साक्ष्यों एवं पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध अभिलेखों का
अनुशीलन किया गया एवं प्रकरण का गहनता से परीक्षण किया गया। प्रकरण में नगर
नियोजक से विधिसंगत आख्या देने देने की अपेक्षा की गई। नगर नियोजक द्वारा दी गई
01.06.2024
आख्या दिनांक मे उपबन्ध दर्शित करते हुए अंकित है कि भवन निर्माण एवं
2008 ( 2023) -6
विकास उपविधि यथा संशोधित के अध्याय के अनुसार आवासीय क्षेत्र में
300 , 12
नर्सिंग होम के लिए भूखण्ड का न्यूनतम क्षेत्रफल वर्ग मी० होगा जो न्यूनतम मी०
, 12
चौडे विद्यान मार्ग पर स्थि त होगा जिसका न्यूनतम फ्रन्टेज मी० होगा। प्रश्नगत भूखण्ड का
1284.00 36.00
क्षेत्रफल वर्ग मी० में से मी० मुख्य मार्ग के अन्तर्गत भूखण्ड हेतु रोड वाईडिंग
1229.07
एरिया छोडने के उपरान्त नेट भूखण्ड क्षेत्रफल वर्ग मी० है। प्रश्नगत भूखण्ड साकेत
36.00
आवासीय कालोनी के स्वीकृत तलपट मानचित्र के अन्तर्गत मी० चौडे मुख्य मार्ग पर
,
स्थि त है जिससे स्पष्ट है कि प्रश्नगत भूखण्ड पर नर्सिंग होम किया अनुमन्य किया जाना
नियमसंगत है। उक्त भूखण्ड पर नर्सिंग होम क्रिया अनुमन्य किये जाने से पूर्व उ०प्र०
- 2438/9- -3-98-60 . . /96 13.10.1998
शासनादेश संख्या आ एल यू सी दिनांक के प्राविधानों
-
के अनुसार प्राधिकरण बोर्ड से प्रश्नगत भूखण्ड का भू उपयोग परिवर्तन करते हुए नर्सिंग होम
को अनुमन्य किये जाने से साकेत कालोनी के तलपट मानचित्र पर कोई विपरीत प्रभाव नही
पडेगा तथा मानचित्र स्वीकृति हेतु सोसायटी से अनापत्ति प्राप्त करने का कोई प्राविधान नहीं है
"
एवं कोई भी विधिक बाधा नही है तथा न ही नियमों के विपरीत है।
[14] The order dated 01.06.2024 was sent to the Board of the Authority for
approval and by means of resolution dated 10.06.2024, the conversion of usage
of land was allowed from residential to nursing home. The records reflect that
the resolution of the Board remained unchallenged in the writ petition.
[15] After the resolution of the Board, the petitioner filed a complaint dated
20.06.2024 to the Chairman, Meerut Development Authority with regard to the
application filed by respondent no. 6 for land use conversion and compounding.
A report was called from the Vice Chairman, MDA by the Chairman in
pursuance of which a report was submitted by the Chief Town Planner to the
Vice Chairman, MDA on 24.06.2024 which stated that the land use conversion
was carried out as per the procedure detailed in Government Order dated
13.10.1998. The Vice Chairman, MDA replied to the Chairman on 04.07.2024
stating that the allegation made by the petitioner in the application are incorrect.
The land use conversion was done in accordance with law. The record does not

(5)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
indicate that any order was passed by the Chairman in pursuance of the reports
of the Vice Chairman, MDA.
[16] By means of order dated 16.08.2024, a relief was given to the
respondent no. 6, who was directed to comply with certain conditions and also
to demolish the non-compoundable area of 206.25 sqm. Thereafter the sealed
premises were de-sealed by means of order dated 31.08.2024 of the Vice
Chairman, MDA.
[17] Once the land use conversion was allowed, the application for
compounding was processed and the compounding map was allowed by
permission dated 12.09.2024 along with certain conditions. The Condition no.
3 specifically mention that uncompoundable part of 206.25 sqm. will be
demolished by the respondent no. 6 at her own cost. The said demolition was
ultimately carried out and a compliance affidavit was filed on behalf of the
Authority with regard to the demolition.
[18] The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 01.06.2024 and the
order dated 16.08.2024 filed the present writ petition. However, the petitioner
did not challenge the permission granted by the Authority dated 12.09.2024
even though the writ petition was filed after the grant of permission.
PETITIONER’S SUBMISSION:
[19] Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner made the following
submissions to challenge the impugned orders :
(i) The Authority has acted in contravention of the Act, 1973 under the
garb of the Government Order dated 13.10.1998 which is inconsistent
with the provision of change in land use under Section 13 of the Act,
1973.
(ii) The land use conversion in a development area is possible only after
amendments in the Master and Zonal Plans of the area. The impugned
order has been passed upon the misconstruction of Building Byelaws,
2008 keeping aside the procedure as envisaged in the Act, 1973.
(iii) The provision of chapter VI of the U.P. Building Construction and
6
Development Byelaw-2008 have been misconstrued as the permission
for the nursing home has to be in accordance Master Plan Zoning
6
Byelaws 2008

(6)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
Regulations. Since the area is purely residential hence clause 6.1 of
chapter 6 cannot be used for the purpose of construction of a nursing
home.
(iv) The U.P. Urban Planning and Development (Assessment, Levy and
7
Collection of Land Use Conversion Charges) Rules, 2014 supersede the
Government Order dated 13.10.1998 and the procedure prescribed in the
2014 Rules states that land use conversion can only be made as a result
of amendment of master Plan and Zonal Plan under Section 13 of the
Act.
(v) Compounding is prohibited under clause 16.3.2 of the Building
Construction and Development Byelaws, 2025 (Regulations, 2025).
RESPONDENT Nos. 2 to 5 SUBMISSIONS:
[20] Learned counsel on behalf of respondent 2 to 5 made the following
submission to refute the arguments advanced by the petitioner’s counsel:
(i) The impugned order is in accordance with law and the same was passed
after applying the due process of law.
(ii) The first application of respondent no. 6 was rejected as the NOCs from
various authorities were not produced with the application. Thereafter on
the basis of a fresh application, sanction was granted for residential
purpose. Once it was found that the construction was in violation of the
sanctioned map, the construction was sealed after giving due notice.
(iii) The land use conversion and the compounding thereafter were done
following the due process of law. The land use conversion was done as
per the powers given in Government order dated 13.10.1998 and after
following the due process given therein. There is no illegality in the
same. The compounding was allowed after demolition of the non-
compoundable area of the construction.
(iv) The sanction to construct the nursing home changing the land use from
residential to nursing home is allowed as per the provisions of Chapter 6
of the Building Byelaws. The Zoning regulations under chapter 11 of the
Meerut Master Plan 2031 (revised), which came into force on
09.02.2026, permit the construction of a nursing home subject to the
conditions imposed in the chapter.
(v) The Authority is well within its rights to change the land use as per the
provisions of the Government Order dated 13.10.1998 and the Authority
7
Rules, 2014

(7)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
is well within its jurisdiction to change the land use of the plot in the
approved colony without referring the matter to the Government.
(vi) The 2014 Rules do not supersede the Government order dated
13.10.1998 and the Government order still holds the field.
(vii) The land use conversion has not changed the layout plan of the Colony
and hence the permission does not suffer from any illegality.
RESPONDENT No. 6 SUBMISSIONS:
[21] Learned Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 6 made the following
submission to refute the arguments advanced by the petitioner’s counsel:
(i) The entire process of conversion of land use and then compounding of
the map has been done in accordance with law and there is no illegality
with the same.
(ii) The land use conversion and subsequent compounding were done on
the basis of applications filed by respondent no. 6 in light of Government
Order dated 13.10.1998. the Government order dated 13.10.1998
specifically allowed the Authority to carry out change in land use subject
to the condition that there is no change in Master Plan or the Zonal Plan.
The conversion of land use was allowed on the basis of Government
Order No. 2438/9-A-3-98-60 LUC/96 dated 13.10.1998.
(iii) The map was sanctioned after inviting objections through publication in
two national daily newspapers. The petitioner was the only Objector and
his objections, were taken into consideration and examined before
passing of the order dated 1.06.2024. Hence, the order dated 1.06.2024
is a reasoned and speaking order passed in accordance with law.
(iv) As per the Building Byelaws, 2008 Nursing home was permitted in
residential areas subject to the condition that the minimum area is more
than 300 sqm which is situated on a minimum 12-meter-wide road with
12 meter frontage. The plot of respondent no. 6 is 1229.07 sqm after
leaving the required frontage and is situated on a 36 meter wide road.
Hence there is no violation of any condition of chapter 6 of the building
Byelaws.
(v) The Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development (Assessment,
Levy and Collection of Land Use Conversion Charges) Rules, 2014 were
made superseding six Government Orders. However, the G.O. No.
2438/9-A-3-98-60 LUC/96 dated 13.10.1998 has not been superseded by
the aforesaid Rules and any subsequent Government Notification.

(8)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
Therefore, the Government Order dated 13.10.1998 still holds good and
governs the field.
th
(vi) Meerut Development Authority in its 126 Board Meeting approved the
proposal for conversion of land use from residential to Nursing home
(Public Utility), after taking into consideration the only objection that
was raised by the Petitioner. The same has not been challenged by the
petitioner hence, the approval granted by the Board has attained finality.
The petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
(vii) The permission granted by the Authority dated 12.09.2024 has not been
challenged. Without challenge to the permission dated 12.09.2024, the
earlier order dated 01.06.2024 cannot be challenged.
(viii) The construction of the concerned Nursing Home and sanction of map
are in consonance with the Model Building Construction and
Development Byelaws and Model Zoning Regulations for Development
Authorities of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 (in short ‘2025 Regulations’).
Construction of the Nursing home on the above-mentioned Plot is
permissible under the Model Building Construction and Development
Byelaws.
(ix) The orders dated 1.06.2024 and 16.08.2024 have two parts whereby not
only the map has been sanctioned but the non-compoundable portion
admeasuring 206.25 sq. mtrs was also directed to be demolished.
Therefore, in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Court vide
its order dated 11.03.2025, the answering respondent has demolished the
objectionable structure and removed it from the site which was evident
from the copy of the certificate issued by the Enforcement Officer of the
Development Authority dated 7.03.2025.
(x) The petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy u/s 41(3) of the
Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, therefore,
the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the sole ground of
alternative remedy. Serious disputed questions of facts are involved in
the present matter, the same can be adjudicated in proceedings u/s 41(3)
of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
[21] Mr. Ajit Singh Rana, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
appearing for respondent no. 1 has adopted the arguments made on behalf of
respondent no. 2 to 6. He has submitted that the impugned order suffers from
no illegality and as such, no interference is required in the impugned order.

(9)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
[22] We have heard the rival submissions and perused the records of the
case. On the basis of the submission and records annexed, the following points
of determination are framed for adjudication of the dispute :
POINTS OF DETERMINATION :
[23] The points of determination are as follows :-
(I) Whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of
alternate remedy of revision under Section 41(3) of the Act, 1973?
(II) Whether the impugned order dated 01.06.2024 and the report dated
16.08.2024 suffer from the vice of colourable exercise of power by the
Authority which requires a judicial review by the Court?
(III) Whether the permission granted to the respondent no. 6 is in
accordance with the Building byelaws, the Zonal regulations and others
laws/ regulations and needs no interference by this Court?
DISCUSSION:
[24] Before proceeding further into the matter, it is necessary that the
question of maintainability of the writ petition be addressed. The petitioner has
challenged the order dated 01.06.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 rejecting
the objection to the sanction granted for conversion of land use and further
directions for compounding of the construction. The Act, 1973 is a complete
code in itself which provides exhaustive remedies against any order/ actions of
the Authority. Section 14 and 15 of the Act, 1973 deal with development and
usage of the land in notified/developed areas and applications for sanction of
maps respectively. Though in the present case, the sanction for land use
conversion has been done under the Government Order dated 13.10.1998, but
further permission has to be obtained under the powers derived under Section
14 and 15 of the Act. Section 15(5) of the Act, 1973 provides for an appeal to
the Chairman upon rejection of permission but does not provide any right of
appeal to a third party upon sanction of the permission. However, Section 41 of
the Act, 1973 gives power to the State Government to review the orders passed
by the Authority. Section 41(3) empowers the State Government to call for the
records on its own or on an application made by the aggrieved party for the
purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order or
direction.

(10)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
[25] It is apparent that the petitioner did not file any application for revision
of the order dated 01.06.2024 before the State Government. The order dated
01.06.2024 has been challenged in the writ petition on the ground that the
Authority did not have any jurisdiction to change the land use by placing
reliance upon the Government order dated 13.10.1998. Further submission
regarding lack of jurisdiction is on the basis of there being no change in the
Master Plan or the Zonal Plan. It is to be kept in mind that the bar of alternate
remedy is not an absolute bar. The Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool
8
Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors ; held that the bar
would not be applicable in the following cases:
(a) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental
rights,
(b) where there is a violation of principles of natural justice,
(c) where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction;
(d) where the vires of an Act is challenged.
9
Thereafter in M/S Radha Krishan Industries vs The State of Himachal Pradesh; ,
the Supreme Court held that:
“26…..
The principles of law which emerge are that:
(i) The power under  Article 226  of the Constitution to issue writs can be ex­
ercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other
purpose as well;
(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of
the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective
alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person;
(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition
has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part
III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natu­
ral justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d)
the vires of a legislation is challenged;
(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers
under  Article 226  of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily,
a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy
is provided by law;
8
1998) 8 SCC 1
(
9
AIR 2021 SC 2114

(11)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or
procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that partic­
ular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under  Article
226  of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule
of policy, convenience and discretion; and
(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may
decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is
objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exer­
cise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.”
In M/S Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. The Excise and Taxation Officer-Cum-
10
Assessing Authority & Ors. , the Supreme Court has again reiterated the above
principles.
[26] In the present case, the petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the
Authority to change the land use. Therefore, what was contented before us is
that the entire proceeding stood vitiated as the order granting sanction was
without jurisdiction. Before deciding the preliminary objection, what needs to
be seen is the concept of ‘maintainability’ and ‘entertainability’ of the writ pe­
tition. Both the concepts are different. Even though a writ petition may be
maintainable on the basis of the exceptions stated above, it may not be enter­
tainable on various other grounds including a ground of disputed question of
fact. Ordinarily when the question of jurisdiction is raised, it involves a pure
question of law and the Courts ought not refuse to entertain the writ petition as
the dispute with regard to the question of law would be an exception to the
statutory remedy and its bar. In the present case the writ petition would be
maintainable before this Court as a question of law with regard to jurisdiction
of the Authority to change the land use has been raised. The writ petition would
be maintainable to see whether the Authority committed any jurisdictional error
in its actions.
As to the question of entertainability of the writ petition, learned coun­
sel for the respondents submitted that the petition involves questions of fact
which the State Government in its revisional powers can look into and rectify,
if need be. From a perusal of the records, it appears that this Court vide its order
dated 21.11.2024 had granted time to the respondents to file their respective
counter affidavit and also granted an interim order directing respondent no. 6
not to raise any construction. The order is reproduced below:
10
(2023 INSC 1992)

(12)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
“1. In pursuance of previous order, Sri J.N. Maurya is in receipt of instructions
from the Development Authority. He states that on the previous occasion the
building plan was not approved as the required No Objection Certificate was
not furnished. Since, respondent no. 6 had moved fresh application annexing
therewith No Objection Certificate from all the authorities and therefore, the
building plan was considered afresh, he therefore submits that there is no ille­
gality in the impugned order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that when the peti­
tioner approached this Court by filing Writ C No. 3619 of 2024 in the past, a
Co-ordinate Division Bench by order dated 19.03.2024 quashed the No Ob­
jection Certificate dated 31.10.2023 and returned the following finding:-
"10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the
No Objection Certificate is an attempt to circumvent the proceedings
which are stated to be pending against the 6th respondent for having raised
constructions contrary to the sanctioned map.
11. Moreover since no power whereunder the impugned No Objection
Certificate would have been issued in the facts and circumstances of the
case would be pointed out, we have no option but to allow this writ peti­
tion and quash the No Objection Certificate dated 31.10.2023. The No
Objection Certificate is also liable to be quashed because it modifies/re­
views an earlier No Objection Certificate granted by the 2nd respondent,
in pursuance whereof, a map for construction of a residential building had
been sanctioned by the Development Authority."
3. Sri Diptiman Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.6
submits that respondent no.6 is not raising any construction at the moment. He
further states that respondent no.6 has already filed affidavit in compliance of
the order of approval dated 12.09.2024, for undertaking demolition of non-
compoundable part of the building measuring 206.25 sq. mtr. He submits that
respondent no. 6 is in the process of demolishing the non-compoundable part
of the building. He further submits that the petitioner has already deposited the
compounding charges with the Development Authority.
4. He prays for and is granted a week's time to file counter affidavit.
5. Counsel for the Development Authority is also granted a week's time to
file counter affidavit.
6. List this case as fresh on 03.12.2024.
7. In the meantime, no further construction shall be made by respondent no. 6
as is also the stand taken before this Court.”
The Supreme Court in the case of L. Hirday Narain Vs. Income-Tax
11
Officer, Bareilly and Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Principal Secre­
12
tary, Govt. of U.P. & Ors. as well as co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Roshan
11
AIR 1971 SC 33
12
(2004) 13 SCC 665

(13)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
13
Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors have consistently held that once plead­
ings have been exchanged then the writ petition should be decided on merits
and not on the ground of alternate remedy. In the present case, the pleadings
have been exchanged and an interim order has also been granted in favour of
the petitioner which is continuing till date. Hence in light of the settled princi­
ples, we are of the considered view that the writ petition is entertainable and
cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of revision under
Section 41(3) of the Act, 1973.
[27] The issue that now needs to be seen is whether the impugned order dated
01.06.2024 and the report dated 16.08.2024 suffer from the vice of colourable
exercise of power by the Authority which requires a judicial review by the
Court?
[28] It would be prudent to refer to the scheme of the Act with regard to
sanction of applications. Section 13 of the Act, 1973 deals with powers of
authority qua amendments to the Master Plan and the Zonal Development Plan.
Section 13 of the Act, 1973 gives power to the Authority to change the Master
Plan or the Zonal Development Plan which in its opinion do not affect important
alternations in the character of the plan and which do not relate to extent of land
uses or the standards of population density. In case any such amendment is
required, publication in the newspaper inviting objections is a pre-requisite,
followed by the decision over the objection, if any and thereafter the final map
is to be published in the newspaper. Further when the Authority makes any
amendment in plans, the amendments have to be referred to the State
Government.
Section 14 of the Act, 1973 deals with development in the area notified
for the Authority. Any development in the notified area has to be carried out in
terms of the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan upon permission being
received from the Vice Chairman. Without permission from Vice Chairman, no
development activity can be carried out.
Section 15 of the Act makes it mandatory for any person(s) who
intent(s) to carry out development as per Section 14 of the Act to file an
application before the Vice Chairman. Thereafter the respondent no. 2, after
making an enquiry, may grant the permission on such terms and conditions as
may be specified in the order or the Vice Chairman may also refuse such a
13
Special Appeal No. 1519 of 2009

(14)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
permission. In case of refusal, the applicant has a right to file an appeal before
the Chairman of the Authority. The Authority can also levy appropriate charges/
cess upon the applicant for granting permission under this Section.
[29] Thus from the above, it is clear that the Authority has powers to change
the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan upon certain conditions being
fulfilled. However, such amendments shall be subjected to publication and
reference to the State Government. Once the plans are in place, the Authority
can then proceed to develop the development notified area on its own or on
applications made by interested parties. The applications by person should be
in consonance with the plans and only thereafter written permission shall be
granted by the Vice Chairman upon such terms and conditions as it may deem
fit.
[30] However, as the petitioner’s contention is based on the fact that the au­
thority has surpassed its powers by passing an order on the sole basis of G.O.
dated 13.10.1998, it would be relevant to refer to the Government Order dated
13.10.1998 on the basis of which the entire exercise has been carried out. The
Government Order is as follows :-
“ ,
श्री अतुल कुमार गुप्ता
उत्तर प्रदेश शासन।
,
सेवा मे
1.
उपाध्यक्षय
समस्त विकास प्राधिकरण उत्तर प्रदेश।
2. , . .
आयुका उ प्र आवास एवं विकास परिषद लखनऊ।
-3
आवास अनुभाग
13 1998
लखनऊ। दिनांक
: /
विषय विकास क्षेत्रों एवं उत्तर प्रदेश आवास एवं विकास परिषद की आवासीय कालोनियों
-
नियंत्रित क्षेत्रों के ले आउट प्लान संशोधित किया जाना।
,
महोदय
-4900/9- -3-36-60 . . ./90 26.12.9
उपर्युका विषयक शासनादेश संख्या आ एल यू सी दिनांक 6
- -
के अन्ति म प्रस्तर में यह निर्देश दिये गये हैं कि ले आउट पान संशोधित कर भू उपयोग परिवर्तन
. . , 1973 -13
के लिए भी सम्पूर्ण प्रक्रिया उ प्र नगर योजना एवं विकास अधिनियम की धारा के
अनुसार जनता से आपत्तियों एवं सुझाव आमंत्रित करने के उपराना शासन द्वारा गजट
. .
अधिसूचना जारी की पूर्ण की जाएगी। उल्लेखनीय है कि उ प्र नगर योजना एवं विकास
1973 -14 15 -
अधिनियम की धारा व अन्र्तगत ले आउट प्लान स्वीकृत करने व संशोधित करने

(15)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
का अधिकार विकास प्राधिकरण स्तर पर ही है। अतः लेआउट प्लान के संशोधन हेतु शासन
स्तर से गजट अधिसूचना जारी करने की आवश्यकता पर पुर्नविचार किया गया।
2.
अतएव इस सम्बन्ध में यह कहने का निर्देश हुआ है कि यदि महायोजना अथवा जोनल
योजना में बिना कोई संशोधन किये हुए विकास प्राधिकरण व उत्तर प्रदेश आवास एवं विकास
/ -
परिषद की योजना के तलपट मानचित्रों में संशोधन भवन भूखण्ड के भू उपयोग परिवर्तन हेतु
. .
कार्यवाही की जानी हो तो तद‌विषयक कार्यवाही प्राधिकरण व उ प्र आवास विकास परिषद
. .
के स्तर पर ही सम्पादित की जाए परन्तु इस संशोधन की कार्यवाही उ प्र नगर योजना एवं
1973 -13
विकास अधिनियम की धारा में निहित प्रकिया के समान ही की जाए अर्थात ऐसे
मामलों में आपत्तियां एवं सुझाव आमंत्रित करने हेतु कम से कम दो समाचार पत्रों विज्ञप्ति
प्रकाशित की जाए तथा आपत्तिकर्ताओं को सुनवाई का अवसर देते हुए प्राप्त आपत्तियों का
निस्तारण कर बोर्ड बैठक में प्रस्ताव की स्वीकृत उपरान्त अन्ति म विज्ञप्ति भी समाघार पत्रों में
-
प्रकाशित की जाए। यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि उक्त संशोधन भू उपयोग परिवर्तन के लिए
- -
भू स्वामियों में भू उपयोग परिवर्तन शुल्क निर्धारित दरों पर वसूल किया जाए। अन्ति म विज्ञप्ति
समाचार पत्रों में प्रकाशित करने के पूर्व विकास प्राधिकरण व उ०प्र० आवास एवं विकास
-
परिषद में भू उपयोग धरिवर्तन शुल्क जमा कराया जाना सुनिश्चि त किया जाएगा। उपरोक्त
26.12.96
शासनादेश दिनांक उक्त सीमा तक संशोधित किया जाता है।
भवदीय
अतुल कुमार गुप्ता”
[31] A perusal of the above Government order would show that the power to
amend the layout plan is vested with the Authority as per Section 14 and 15 of
the Act. Therefore, the Government in its wisdom sought to amend the proce­
dure which required permission from the State Government. The Government
Order was issued to rectify this discrepancy which would result in long delay
with regard to changes in layout plan. The Government order provided that in
case layout plans have to be changed then the Authority would have the right
to change the payout plan without sending a reference to the Government pro­
vided the publication with regard to the change was done in the newspaper
and objections were invited. The decision on the objections would then be re­
ferred to the Board for its approval.
[32] The Authority and the respondent no. 6 have relied upon this govern­
ment order to show that the land use conversion was done in accordance with
law and the procedure as prescribed under the Government order was fol­
lowed before sanction was granted by the respondent no. 2 to develop the plot
as a nursing home.
[33] The learned counsel for the Authority as well as respondent no. 6 have
also relied upon the Chapter 6 of the Building Byelaws 2008 to show that

(16)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
nursing home was permitted in residential areas. The relevant portion of
Chapter 6 of the building byelaws is as follows :
[34] Learned Counsel for the Authority has also relied upon the Meerut
Master Plan 2031 to contend that the Zoning regulations as contained in the
Master Plan 2031 were applicable. He submitted that Chapter-XI of Master
Plan-2031 deals with Zoning Regulations. Master Plan-2031 was approved by
the Government Vide Government Order dated 24.01.2024 and implemented by
publication of notification since 09.02.2024. The Para No. 11.1 of Chapter XI,
under heading 'Object of Zoning', clearly provides that in a Master Plan Map
generally main land use such as Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Office,
Public, Semipublic facilities, park etc. are shown however, in between main
land use certain ancillary activities, which were not possible to be shown in the
Master Plan Map separately are permissible as per Zoning Regulations. The
object of Zoning Regulation as incorporated in Master Plan-2031 is extracted
as under:-

(17)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
“ - , ,
महायोजना में सामान्यतः प्रमुख भू उपयोगों तथा आवासीय वाणिज्यि क औद्योगिक
, - , ,
कार्यालय अर्द्ध सार्वजनिक सुविधायें पार्क एवं खुले स्थल कृषि आदि को ही दर्शाया जाता
- (ACTIVITIES)
है। प्रमुख भू उपयोगों के अंतर्गत अनुमन्य आनुषांगिक क्रियायें जिन्हें
महायोजना मानचित्र पर अलग से दर्शाया जाना सम्भव नहीं है की अनुज्ञा जोर्निंग रेगुलेशन्स
के आधार पर प्रदान की जाती है। सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा नई योजनाओं भी विशेष आनुषंगिक
(ANCILLARY/INCIDENTAL) /
में क्रियाओं उपयोगों का प्राविधान जोर्निंग रेगुलेशन्स
तथा प्रभावी भवन निर्माण एवं विकास उपविधि के अनुसार किया जाना अपेक्षित है ताकि जन
, "
स्वास्थ्य कल्याण एवं सुरक्षा सुनिश्चि त हो सके।
[35] Furthermore, the main land use areas, ancillary/incidental activities are
permissible with conditions and restrictions as well as with special permission.
Para No. 11.13 of Chapter XI under heading ' -
प्रमुख भू उपयोग जोन्स में सशर्त अनुमन्य
/ '. A total of 32 conditional
क्रियाओं उपयोगों हेतु अनिवार्य शर्ते एवं प्रतिबन्ध
activities/use with certain conditions and restrictions are permissible. Para No.
11.14 of Chapter XI under heading ' (Activities)
विशेष अनुमति से अनुमन्य क्रियाओं
'. Zoning Matrix appended in Chapter XI of Plan-2031 depicts
हेतु अपेक्षाएं
permissible ancillary/incidental activities on land use in main land use areas. In
the given matrix under column activities at Serial no.5.21 heading 'Nursing
Home/Clinic/Poly clinic' activities/use is permissible with certain
conditions/restrictions in constructed area, market area, residential area without
restriction/condition in mixed land use area. The matrix is depicted below :

(18)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
[36] Learned counsel for the Authority submitted that as per the matrix,
there are no purely residential areas in the Master Plan 2031. The residential
area ( ) in column 3 of the matrix is the relevant category and under
आवासीय क्षेत्र
5.21 ( / / is allowed with code 10. Code 10 relates
नर्सींग होम क्लि निक पाली क्लि निक)
to Regulation 11.13 of the Zoning Regulations which is as follows:
“11.13 - /
प्रमुख भू उपयोग जोन्स में सशर्त अनुमन्य क्रियाओं उपयोगों हेतु अनिवार्य शर्ते एवं
:
प्रतिबन्ध
10. 12 20
न्यूनतम मीटर चौड़े मार्ग पर अधिकतम शैय्याओं तक। “
Furthermore since the nursing home is under “green” category which is
a “permitted” category, therefore the same is permitted and the sanction granted
for construction is in accordance with law.
[37] Learned Counsel for the Authority submitted that Master Plan 2031
permits nursing home with 20 beds in residential areas subject to the condition
that it should be on a 12 meter wide road. In the present case, the respondent
no. 6 satisfied all the conditions therefore as per Chapter 6 of the Building
Byelaws, the change in land use was permitted. He submitted that from the
perusal of the provisions of Zoning Regulation, it is evidently clear that the
Authority had rightly sanctioned the map of nursing home by compounding of
existing residential map strictly in accordance with provision of Meerut Master
Plan-2031 and Building Construction and Development Bylaws, 2008 (as
amended in 2023) as well as compounding Bylaws-2009.

(19)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
[38] Learned counsel for the Authority as well as respondent no. 6 have also
relied upon the Regulations, 2025 to show that nursing home is a permissible
activity in a residential area. Relevant extract is as follows:
Learned counsel for respondents submitted that as per the Regulations,
2025 permission for construction of Nursing home can be provided as per the
master plan or zoning regulations. The same is apparent from the above chart.
However certain conditions with regard to plot size and road width has to be
seen before grant of permission. The present case relates to a maximum of 20
beds for which a minimum 300 sqm plot size is required.

(20)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
They have also relied upon Clause 15.3 of the Regulations, 2025 (the
th
above chart) to show that under the Residential Category “R” (5 column) at
serial 5.7, Healthcare facilities are provided and under the Column “R”, an
activity of nursing home can be carried out without any special conditions.
Since the nursing home is under “green” category which is a “permitted”
category, therefore the same is permitted and the sanction granted for
construction is in accordance with law.
[39] Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reliance placed by
the learned counsel for the respondents on the Building Byelaws 2008 and the
2025 Regulations is misplaced as the same does not provide any power to
amend the Master plan or the Zoning Plan. He submitted that the Saket area is

(21)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
a residential colony which was provided to the cooperative housing society for
development. The layout plan of the society was sanctioned and on the basis of
the layout plan, the plots were sold to different persons including the respondent
no. 6. He further submitted that the change from residential to nursing home
was not permissible as it would require the change in the Zonal plans which
could be done only by the State Government under Section 13 of the Act. He
further submitted that the reliance on the Government order dated 13.10.1998
is misplaced as firstly it did not give any power to the Authority to change any
Zonal Plan which is required as Saket area is a residential area and secondly the
2014 Rules superseded the Government Order. He submitted that as such the
exercise of power by the Authority in changing the land use is patently a
colourable exercise of power and as such amenable to judicial review.
[40] When the Court is exercising the powers of judicial review, the judicial
review has to be exercised with circumspect. The review is not of the final
decision but the steps that were taken in reaching such a decision. We are
primarily concerned with the legality of the decision-making process rather than
the merits of the decision itself. In the present case, the start of the decision
making process commenced from the date the application for change in land
use was filed before the Authority i.e. 14.02.2024. This application came to be
processed in light of the Government order dated 13.10.1998 by following all
the steps detailed in the Government Order and the procedure laid down in
Section 13 of the Act, 1973. Objections were invited after publication on
09.03.2024 and a single objection of the petitioner was received. The Society
did not file any objection against the proposed change in land use and therefore
it can be assumed that the Society did not have any objection to the change in
land use. The objection of the petitioner was decided by means of order dated
01.06.2024 i.e. the impugned order.
[41] The application of respondent no. 6 was filed on 14.02.2024 i.e. after
the enforcement of the Meerut Master Plan 2031. Therefore, what has to be seen
is whether the Master Plan 2031 and the Zoning Regulations contained therein
permitted using the land as nursing home. It is trite law that the relevant law
applicable on an application is the law that is prevalent on the date the
application was allowed as held in Anand Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. and
14
others; . Thus on the date the application was processed, the relevant Zoning
14
(2014) 2 ADJ 742 (FB)

(22)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
Regulations were stated in Chapter XI of Master Plan 2031 which permitted for
use of land as Nursing home subject to conditions contained in Regulation 11.13
(10) of Meerut Master Plan 2031. As indicated above, the Master Plan
permitted Nursing homes in residential areas subject to the condition that the
road must be 12 meters wide. In the present case, the road is 36 meters wide
therefore the condition with regard to sanction is fulfilled. As to the condition
in Chapter VI of the Building Byelaws, the plot area is far above the minimum
required plot area of 300 sqm.
[42] Learned Counsel for the petitioner contented that the reliance on the
Government order dated 13.10.1998 is misplaced as firstly it did not give any
power to the Authority to change any Zonal Plan which is required as Saket area
is a residential area and secondly the 2014 Rules superseded the Government
Order. We have examined the Government order as well as Chapter 6 of the
Building Byelaws 2008. It is apparent that the Government order was with
regard to a discrepancy between implementation of Section 13 and Section 14
and 15 of the 1973 Act. The Government was of the view that once the change
in layout plans can be sanctioned by the Authority itself under Section 14 and
15 of the 1973 Act, then the need to refer the matter to the State government in
absence of any change in the Master Plan or the Zonal plan is superfluous.
Therefore, powers were given to the Authority to permit changes in the layout
plans after complying with the procedure of publication for change in plans and
with due approval of the Board of the Authority.
[43] In the present case, the Authority allowed the change in land use after
due approval from the Board vide its resolution dated 10.06.2024 drawing its
powers on the basis of the Government Order dated 13.10.1998. The Building
Byelaws, 2008 (as amended in 2023) and the Zoning Regulations contained in
Chapter XI in Master Plan 2031 permitted sanction for nursing home in
residential areas subject to conditions of Chapter 6 of the Building Byelaws,
2008. It is clearly reflected that the Byelaws and the Zoning regulations
permitted the use of land for nursing home and the application for change in
land use was processed on the basis of the powers given in the Government
order dated 13.10.1998. There is no challenge to the Government Order dated
13.10.1998.

(23)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
[44] Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the usage of land as
nursing home is permitted, provided, the Master Plan Zoning Regulations
permites. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner also
filed a supplementary affidavit to impress upon the Court that the Zoning
Regulations did not permit such an activity. We have perused the supplementary
affidavit along with its annexures. The Zoning Regulations have also been filed
in the written submission filed by the Authority and the same are also being
relied upon as the Regulations in the supplementary affidavit do not appear to
be complete. Upon perusal of supplementary affidavit and the written
submission, we find that there is no restriction in the Zoning Regulations to
support the contention of the petitioner. The Zoning regulations in Clause
11.10.5.23 define Nursing homes and matrix provided in the Zoning
Regulations also permit the land use for a nursing home as is indicated above.
Also, if the Zoning Regulations are compared with the Byelaws, 2008 it is
apparent that Nursing home is permitted in residential areas subject to
fulfillment of conditions mentioned in Chapter VI. We are of the considered
view that the objection, that Zoning Regulations did not permit nursing home,
is misplaced and is hereby rejected. Relying upon the above observations, we
are also of the view that the application for change in land use was processed in
accordance with law and the entire process suffers from no illegality which
would require a judicial review. Thus, the answer to the second issue is also
negative.
[45] As regarding the contention that the 2014 Rules superseded the
Government Order dated 13.10.1998, we have examined the Rules in detail. It
would be pertinent to note that the Rules itself provide a list of Government
Orders that stood superseded by the implementation of he said Rules. The
Government Order dated 13.10.1998 has not been superseded by the 2014 rules
and as such still continues to hold the field. As we have observed above, the
Government Order was only issued to rectify an apparent discrepancy with
regard to Section 13, 14 and 15 of Act and the power of the Authority to make
changes in the layout plan.
[46] As regarding the contention that land use conversion would only be
possible once the Master and the Zonal plans were amended, the same is liable
to be rejected. The Building Byelaws, 2008 specifically provides that nursing
home is permitted in a residential area. The reliance of the petitioner on the fact

(24)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
that Zoning Regulations also did not permit the nursing home is misconceived
as observed above. The petitioner has been unable to prove that Zoning
Regulations prohibited land use conversion from residential to nursing home.
Nothing has been placed on record to prove otherwise.
[47] With regard to the applicability of the compounding laws as prescribed
under the relevant Byelaws, it would be pertinent to note that while granting
permission the Authority had intimated to respondent no. 6 as to the area which
was non-compoundable and liable to be demolished. The said non-
compoundable area has now been demolished as is evident from the compliance
affidavit filed in this regard. As to the contention that compounding is not
permissible as per chapter 16.3.2 of the 2025 Regulations, it would suffice to
say that from the chart appended above, it is clear that nursing home is a
permitted activity within residential zone. Furthermore, once the learned
counsel for the petitioner has refuted the applicability of the 2025 Regulations
to the present case, then the argument that compounding cannot be done in light
of Chapter 16.3.2 is liable to be rejected as the petitioner cannot be permitted to
approbate and reprobate. Nothing has been brought on record to show that
compounding was not permissible under the 2008 Bylaws or that further area
as stated in the permission dated 12.09.2024 was non-compoundable.
[48] Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Ganga
15
Charan Aryawardhan Hospital Vs. State of U.P. and others; to content that the
sanction given was illegal. We have perused the said judgment and find that the
said judgment dealt with a case where there was no permission to run a nursing
home and thus the compounding was not permitted. In the present case, sanction
was granted for running a nursing home. Therefore, the said case law is not
applicable in the present set of facts and circumstances.

[49] The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon the
16
judgment of R.K. Mittal vs. State of U.P. and others to contend that any land
use contrary to the Master Plan or the zonal plan are illegal. However in the
present case, the Zonal Plans allowed for certain activities to be carried
subject to certain condition and therefore the said judgment is not applicable in
the present set of facts and circumstances.
15
2023 (1) ADJ 273
16
(2012) 2 SCC 232

(25)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
Reliance is also placed upon the order passed in Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, NOIDA Authority and another vs. Mange ram Sharma (dead)
17
through Lrs. and another was with regard to applications filed by Doctors for
running clinics in their residences. The applications were filled with regard to
directions issued in R.K. Mittal (supra). The Supreme Court held that neither a
poly clinic nor a nursing home can run in a residential area. The observations
were based upon NOIDA Master Plan 2031. However in the present case, the
issue at hand is governed by Meerut Master Plan 2031 which has allowed
specific usage as per the matrix provided in the Zoning Regulations under
chapter XI. Thus the observations in the above case are not applicable in the
present set of circumstances.
In Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and another vs. U.P. Award Evam Vikas
18
Parishad and others the Supreme Court was dealing with an issue of
unauthorized construction and its subsequent demolition. In the present case,
the non-compoundable construction has been demolished and the remaining
part compounded as per the policy of the Authority. The facts of the case are
completely different to the present set of facts and circumstance.
However, the petitioners have also placed heavy reliance on the
proceedings drawn before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bimalendu Pradhan
19
vs. State of Orissa. We are aware of the fact that in the aforesaid case, the
Supreme Court is dealing with the issue of unauthorized construction without
any sanctioned plans as well as demolishing illegal constructions in setbacks.
However in the present case, the sanction has already been granted to the
petitioner which remained unchallenged. Also the permission was granted as
per the Meerut Master Plan 2031 which permits nursing home in residential
areas subject to certain conditions. As those conditions were met, the sanction
was granted and there is no illegality in the same as we have indicated above.
[50] In light of what has been observed and stated above, we are of the
considered view that the order dated 01.06.2024 passed by the Secretary,
Meerut Development Authority and the report dated 16.08.2024 sent by the
Chief Town Planner, Meerut Development Authority do not suffer from the vice
of colourable exercise of power which requires any judicial review by this
Court. The records indicate that the entire process was carried out in accordance
17
(2012) 7 SCC 65
18
2024 INSC 990
19
Contempt petition (c) 595/2025 in C.A. No. 14604/2024

(26)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
with law and as per the relevant Law/ regulations/ government order and the
same suffers from no illegality.
[51] In reaching the above conclusion, we are also fortified from the fact
that the Board resolution dated 10.06.2024 which allowed for conversion of
land use and the subsequent permission under Section 15(1) of the Act, 1973
dated 12.09.2024 were never challenged. The omission to amend the pleadings
by challenging the resolution and the permission leads us to the conclusion that
the proceedings were initiated and culminated in accordance with law.
ANSWERS TO THE POINTS OF DETERMINATION:
[52] Regarding issue no. 1 as to whether the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy of revision under Section
41(3) of the Act, 1973 the issue is answered in the negative holding that
the writ petition is maintainable.
[53] Regarding Issue no. 2 as to whether the impugned order dated
01.06.2024 and the report dated 16.08.2024 suffer from colourable
exercise of power by the Authority which requires a judicial review by
the Court the issue is answered in the negative holding that there is no
illegality in the process adopted which requires any judicial review by
this Court.
CONCLUSIONS:
[54] In the light of the findings and the observations given above, the writ
petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to
cost.
[55] Even though the writ petition stands dismissed, we are not oblivious to
the difficulties that may be faced by the residents of the colony with regard to
the construction of a nursing home and their functioning, therefore, we deem it
appropriate to issue certain directions to ensure that the lives of the residents are
not affected adversely. The respondent no. 6 shall file an affidavit before the
respondent no. 2 categorically stating the following:
(i) The construction to be carried out will be in compliance of the specific
conditions given in the permission and there shall be no deviation from
the same.

(27)
Writ C No. 36811 of 2024
(ii) The parking of the vehicles shall be regulated by respondent no. 6 and
the parking shall not overflow into the internal roads of the Society so as
to cause any inconvenience to the residents of the Society.
(iii) In case of any violations with regard to parking, appropriate action will
be initiated by respondent no. 2 in accordance with law.
(iv) Medical waste management regulations will be complied to the full
extent. There shall be no throwing of garbage/ medical waste in the
society and the respondent no. 6 shall enter into a contract with necessary
medical waste disposal agencies to ensure hygiene levels.
The said affidavit is to be filed within one week from today before
respondent no. 2 who shall ensure that there is no deviation from the
undertakings given in the affidavit.
(Kunal Ravi Singh) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi)
May 25, 2026
Sumit S
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad