SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- N. Santosh Hegde and S.B. Sinha, JJ.

Writ Petition (C) No. 353 of 2004. D/d. 12.1.2005.

Uttar Pradesh State Employees Confederation - Petitioners

Versus

Principal Secretary, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh - Respondents

Environment Protection and Pollution Control - Change in land use - Allotment and Construction made contrary to land use - Determination of - Relevance of expert opinion as to ecological impact - Construction was in accordance with sanctioned plan and was permitted after obtaining opinions from autonomous and respectable expert bodies - Petitioners failed to rebut the statements of facts made in the counter affidavits by the respondents - Construction made by the respondent held to be lawful - Writ petition dismissed.

[Para 5]

JUDGMENT

N. Santosh Hegde, J. - In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the allotment of certain land belonging to the State of U.P. situated allegedly on the riverbed of Yamuna. The petitioners also challenged the allotment of land abutting the above land by DDA to the third respondent on the ground that the same would adversely affect recharging of underground water and the allotment is contrary to the land user as declared in the development plan.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the State of U.P. submitted that the land allotted to the third respondent which belongs to it was allotted on the condition that there shall be no construction on this land and in accordance with the said condition the first respondent has not put up any construction on this land but is developing the same as a green belt, therefore, there is no violation of the terms of the allotment.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Delhi Development Authority contends that the construction that is being put up by the third respondent is in accordance with the sanctioned plan and the same is nearly 1700 m away from the river bank.

4. It is also submitted by DDA that the allotment and construction thereon was permitted after obtaining the opinion of the Central Water Commission and National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) which is an autonomous body. Therefore, the allegation made in the petition is without any basis.

5. Since the petitioners are unable to rebut the above statements made by the learned counsel which is supported by affidavits filed in this Court, we are not inclined to entertain this petition and being satisfied in regard to the validity of the construction that is being made by the third respondent as lawful, we dismiss this petition.

.