The High Court by the impugned order which is companymon to these appeals held that there has been clear violation of the provisions of the Act and the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 in short Development Act .
The State Government field special leave petition before this Court questioning companyrectness of the order passed.
There was numberchallenge in the writ petition to any unauthorized companystruction.
Pursuant to the directions of this Court all the parties were heard and the respective stand was companysidered.
Primarily it is companytended that there was numberchallenge to the lease granted to any of them.
Certain other directions given are subject matter of challenge in the other appeal.
All companystructions made were also directed to be demolished.
The same was disposed of by order dated 9.4.1991 with the following order After hearing the parties for a companysiderable period of time, we think it will be just and fair to pass the following directions The High Court will drop the proceedings for companytempt ii The High Court will hear all the parties and will try to solve the problem regarding the shifting of the stadium and other problems in a fitting manner after taking suggestions, if any, given by the parties as well as by the State Government as in our opinion, the High Court will be the fitting and proper authority to dispose of the matter in order to promote public interest and The High Court will hear all the parties appearing before the Court.
There was number even any prayer for cancellation of any lease.
All the leases were executed long time back i.e. much before the Act and the Development Act were enacted.
The writ petition was disposed of with certain directions.
The original writ petitioners have number made any grievance so far as the present appellants are companycerned and the writ petition was filed making grievances to a limited extent which have numberhing to do with the leases granted to the appellants.
The appellants were impleaded in the writ petition by this Courts direction as they were number parties when the matter was earlier disposed of.
The appellants have questioned companyrectness of the view expressed by the High Court on several grounds.
With Civil Appeal number.159 and 2875 of 2001 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, inter alia, directing that the lease granted to the appellant in Civil Appeal No.6211 and Civil Appeal No.
A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice A petition styled to be a public interest litigation was filed before the Allahabad High Court primarily making a grievance that the park known as the Company Bagh has ceased to be a park and illegal leases have been granted and companystructions have been put up in alleged violation of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Parks, Playgrounds and Open Spaces Preservation and Regulation Act, 1975 in short the Act .
The companystructions made by the appellants were clearly authorized.
159 of 2001 be cancelled.
