1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Prabhat Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 & 3.

2. This petition has been filed contending that notices dated 17.03.2023, 10.04.2023 and 27.04.2023 have been sent to the State Government under Section 54 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 upon which no decision has been taken so far. The petition is in respect of part and parcel of land, which is shown as City Park in the master plan.

3. Petitioners contend that such land ought to have been acquired for it to be utilized as per plan but the land has not been acquired for such purposes. A notice has been served upon the State in terms of Section 54(2) of the Act of 1973, but as the State Government has not taken any decision under Section 54(2) of the Act of 1973 as such the inaction on part of the State to take a decision is arbitrary. The petitioners have also challenged a show cause notice issued to them on 15.02.2023 and 16.02.2023. By this show cause notice the petitioners have been called upon to explain as to why their unauthorized construction of house be not demolished as no building plan has been got sanctioned.

4. In paras 10 & 11 of the writ petition it is contended that petitioners intended to get their building plan sanctioned but despite all efforts made their building plan have not been sanctioned.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Development Authority points out that petitioners have not submitted any map for proposed constructions over the land in question.

6. The grievance raised in this petition essentially is in two parts. The first part of the grievance is that the State has failed to take a decision to release the land, which was proposed to be utilized for construction of City Part despite the notices sent to the State. Section 54 of the Act of 1973 reads as under:-

"54. Plans to stand modified in certain cases.

(1) Where any land situated in the development area is required by the Master Plan or a zonal Development Plan to be kept as an open space or unbuilt upon or is designated in any such plan as subject to compulsory acquisition, then, if at the expiration of ten years from the date of coming into operation of the Plan under Section 12 or where such land has been so required or designated by any amendment of such plan, from the date of coming into operation of such amendment, under Sub-section (4) of Section 13, the land is not compulsorily acquired the owner of land may serve on the State Government a notice requiring his interest in the land to be so acquired.

(2) If the State Government fails to acquire such land within a period of six months from the date of the notice, the Master Plan or, as the case may be, the Zonal Development Plan shall have effect after the expiration of the said six months, as if that land were not required to be kept as an open space or unbuilt upon or were not designated as subject to compulsory acquisition."

7. It is the case of the petitioners that in the master plan the land in question was to be used as City Park. No acquisition proceedings were, however, undertaken by the State. It is then submitted that petitioners have moved an application referable to Section 54 of the Act on which no decision has been taken. Such application is contained as Annexure-12 to the writ petition and it has been signed by various persons. There is, however, nothing on record to show that this letter was actually sent to the State. Even if it is assumed that such application was sent and no decision was taken, then also the consequence would be such as is specified in sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Act of 1973. The land, which are not compulsorily acquired for the user specified in the master plan, cannot be insisted upon to be used in the manner specified in the master plan. At best, the petitioners can then state that the land is not required to be compulsorily kept as City Park. This, however, would not mean that petitioners become entitled to raise construction of her house even without sanctioning of plan in terms of Section 14 & 15 of the Act of 1973. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners ever applied for sanctioning of building plan. It is also not the petitioners' case that the building plan is not being considered as the authority is of the view that the user of land as per the master plan is City Park.

8. In the facts of the case, we are of the view that merely because petitioners claimed to have sent a letter to the State Government under Section 54(2) of the Act, it would not mean that petitioners become entitled to raise construction of house without getting their plan sanctioned. In such view of the matter, we find no occasion to interfere with the show cause notice issued to her, whereby the petitioners have been called upon to explain as to why order of demolition be not passed in respect of the constructions raised.

9. We, therefore, refuse to interfere in the writ petition filed against the show cause notices dated 15.02.2023 and 16.02.2023.

10. It is, however, provided that the petitioners shall be at liberty to submit their reply to the show cause notice issued to them and also apply for regularization of her building plan, if constructions raised are in accordance with the building byelaws. In the event such a representation/objection is made within ten days from today, the authority concerned shall accord consideration to such reply before proceeding any further.

11. Subject to the above observations made, this writ petition is consigned to records.