9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Unauthorized additional construction and change of user of land. 2. Alleged discrimination in policy application and regularization. 3. Legal validity of actions taken by NOIDA. Summary: 1. Unauthorized Additional Construction and Change of User of Land: The appellant challenged the orders by NOIDA officers dated 27.10.2004 and 31.3.2005, which cited unauthorized additional construction and change of user of land. NOIDA issued a notice u/s 10(1) of the U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976, indicating violations of building bye-laws and lease deed terms. The appellant was required to remove unauthorized construction within 15 days. Subsequent notices were issued due to non-compliance, and the appellant's request for changed user was rejected by NOIDA. 2. Alleged Discrimination in Policy Application and Regularization: The appellant argued that there was discrimination as other lessees of plots P-4, P-5, and P-6 were permitted similar changes. The High Court dismissed this claim, noting that the appellant failed to prove compliance with the terms and conditions. The Court emphasized that any irregularities by NOIDA in other cases do not confer a legal right to the appellant for similar treatment. 3. Legal Validity of Actions Taken by NOIDA: The Supreme Court upheld the actions of NOIDA, stating that the appellant's construction and usage were in violation of the lease deed and building regulations. The Court reiterated that Article 14 does not perpetuate illegality and that unauthorized actions by NOIDA in other cases do not justify similar treatment for the appellant. The Court cited several precedents affirming that illegal actions do not create legal rights for others to claim parity. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, affirming that NOIDA's actions were legally valid and not discriminatory. The Court emphasized adherence to legal and regulatory frameworks, rejecting the appellant's claims for similar treatment based on alleged irregularities in other cases.
|
