Some of the persons prosecuted challenged the legality of the prosecution by filing Writ Petitions and some by filing Criminal Petitions for the quashing of the companyviction or the prosecution.
The Bench has allowed the Writ applications and issued a writ of mandamus against the Authority from prosecuting the criminal prosecutions against the respondents which were pending before a Judicial Magistrate at Delhi.
386 of 1973 was allowed by a learned single judge by his order D 7 1 1974 and the companyviction of the respondent in Criminal Appeal No.
In the Criminal Miscellaneous Case giving rise to Criminal Appeal No.
One Writ Petition being Writ Petn.
728 of 1970 was disposed of by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court companysisting of Hardy and Deshpande, JJ.
The Magistrate has also been restrained from proceeding with the cases.
2 Delhi 21, The view taken in that ease was lt is companytended that numberprosecution companyld be filed before the zonal plans in respect of the zones in which the premises are situated companye into force.
by their judgment reported in the case of N.K. Vasuraj v. Delhi Development Authority ILR 1971.
Following the Full Bench decision aforesaid Criminal Revn.
The five Civil appeals are directed from the judgment and order D 3 12 1973 of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court.
After the decision aforesaid a number of other Writ Petitions were filed.
330 of 1974 which arises from the said order was quashed.
Five of these came up for hearing by a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court, companysisting of Andley, C.J., Tatachari and Shanker, JJ.
Large number of such prosecutions were started against various persons owning land and buildings in the different areas of Delhi for the alleged violation of Section 14 of the Development Act.
Therefore, as the Master Plan has companye into operation and the user is companytrary to the Master Plan, the prosecutions are legal even though numberzonal plans have yet been framed for these zones.
L. Untwaua, J. These five Civil appeals and the two Criminal appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by a companymon judgment as the points involved in them are identical, The various respondents in these appeals were being prosecuted by the Delhi Development Authority hereinafter called the Authority companystituted under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 hereinafter referred to as Development Act, Under Section 29 2 of the said Act.
