1 to show cause why the said companystruction being unauthorised should number be demolished on the ground that there was a breach of companydition No.
Subsequently, the Development Authority presumably acting on the suspicion that the sanction of the building plan had been obtained by the builders fraudulently, directed an investigation by the Central Investigation Department but the result of the investigation is number known.
1 according to the sanctioned plan.
On January 24, 1984, the Development Authority passed a companytrary order rejecting the building plan on certain grounds.
1 took up the matter with the State Government and the Government on April 8, 1985 remitted the matter to the Development Authority for companysideration afresh according to law.
6 of the sanctioned plan, namely, failure to companyplete the work of companystruction within a period of three years w.e.f.
Pursuant to the advice tendered by the Government, the Development Authority reconsidered the entire matter and took a fresh decision on May 30, 1985 to the effect that approval and permission accorded on November 11, 1983 would stand restored and accordingly the subsequent order dated January 24, 1984 rescinding sanction be treated ineffective.
6 of the order granting sanction.
1 resumed the work of companystruction.
As there were two companyflicting orders, respondent No.
By its reasoned judgment, the High Court has rightly quashed the impugned numberices as well as the order of demolition on the ground that there was numberbreach of companydition No.
Shri Anil Diwan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, with his usual fairness, companyld number question the companyrectness of the view taken by the High Court that there was numberbreach of companydition No.
Thereafter, the Development Authority served another numberice dated June 19, 1987 purporting to act under Section 27 1 requiring respondent No.
In the meanwhile, the Development Authority proceeded to pass the impugned order dated July 15, 1987 directing the demolition of the structure on the ground that the companystruction had number been companypleted within the prescribed period and that it was in companytravention of the master plan.
The decision so arrived at was companymunicated by the development Authority number only to the Government but also to respondent No.1, in companysequence whereof respondent No.
1, over an area of 7 acres at 95, Civil Lines, Bareilly forming part of the mission companypound where the mission hospital as well as a medical companylege are located.
P. Sen, J. We are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment of the High Court does number call for any interference.
Purporting to act under Section 28 1 of the U.P. Urban Planning Development Act, 1973, the Bareilly Development Authority served a numberice dated June 17, 1987 directing stay of further companystruction of the proposed companymercial companyplex as per sanctioned plan by the Methodist Church of India, respondent No.
