U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD AND ANR. versus FRIENDS COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 729 · Decided: 24-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
FRIENDS COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ANR. 
APRIL 24, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
B 
, 
U.P. Urban Planning and Developm.ent Act, 1973: Section 59( l)(a)-
) 
Exception IIl-fnterpretation of 
.. J 
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 : 
Housing Scheme-Notifications for--<Jovemment approval subsequent 
to issue of notification-Held approval valid dates previous action taken in 
anticipation of a approval-Notification and declaration published under 
Sections 28 and 32 held valid. 
For a development scheme the appellant·Vikas Parishad published 
c 
D 
a Notification dated 7th June, 1982 under Section 28 of the U.P. Avas Evam 
Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. It sought Government's approval of the 
scheme on July 27, 1982 which was granted on August 24, 1982. The 
declaration under Section 32 was published on February 28, 1987. The 
respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court which held that the E 
notification issued under Section 28 and the declaration Issued under 
Section 32 of the Adhiniyam were invalid and Inoperative since the prior 
approval of the Government was not obtained under Exception (Iii) to 
Section 59(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 . 
Against the decision of the High Court an appeal was preferred F 
before this Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The approval envisaged under Exception (Iii) of Section 
59(l)(a) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 is to enable G 
the Parishad to proceed further in implementation of the scheme framed by 
the Board. Until approval is given by the Government, the Board may not 
effectively implement the scheme. Nevertheless, once the approval is given, 
all the previous acts done or actions taken in anticipation of the approval 
get validated and the publications made under the Act thereby become H 
729 
730 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 3 S.C.R. 
A valid. If prior approval would have been a pre- condition for further steps, 
the Act would have said so. This not having been done, what is material is to 
obtain approval of the State Government. The reason appears to be that 
when the schemes have been framed, the land suitably required for effective 
implementation of the scheme alone should be acquired and not in excess in 
B the guise of framing the schemes. [732-H, 733-A, 732-C] 
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd. & Ors., [1986] 1 
SCC 264 and Lord Krishna Textiles Mills Ltd. v. Workmen, [1961] 1 L.LJ. 
211, referred to. 
C 
Narinder Mohan Foundation Tmst v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 
Meerut, Writ Petition No. 17372 of 1987 decided by Allahabad High Court 
on 18.3.1993, disapproved. 
2. On similar facts when the appellant itself has compromised with 
others and the same has not been extended to the respondents, it is not a 
D fit case for Court's interference. The respondents' society also consist of 
the members who need sites for construction of their houses. Right to 
shelter is a fundamental right, which springs from the right to residence 
assured in Article 19(1)(e) and right to life under Article 21 of the Con-
stitution. No doubt their construction has also to be in accordance with 
E lay out and building rules but that would not be a ground to refuse 
permission to them when they approach the authorities to sanction the 
same in accordance with law. [733-B, CJ 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5433 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.8.1994 of the Allahabad 
High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 14708 of 1984. 
M.N. Krishnamani and P.K. Jain for the Appellants. 
G 
A.S. Pundir for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
H 
We }ave heard learned counsel on both sides. Since there is a 
-~ 
) 
U.P. AV AS EV AM VJKAS PARIS HAD •.. FRIENDS COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LID. 
731 
conflict of decisions rendered by the High Court of Allahabad on inter-
A 
pretation of exception (iii) to s.59(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Planning and 
Development Act, 1973 (for short, 'Act'), we are inclined to resolve the 
conflict. 
Declaration under s.3 was published on September 3, 1977. Notifica-
tion under s.28 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 B 
(for short 'the Adhiniyam') was published on June 7, 1982. Immediately the 
appellant had sought for the approval of the Government through the letter 
dated July 27, 1982. The Governmen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.