JUDGMENT
D.S. Sinha, J.
1. Heard the petitioner Sri Amar Nath Gupta, who appears in person. Notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was accepted by Sri J. N. Sharma. Neither any counter-affidavit has been filed nor Sri Sharma is present. The respondent No. 1 is represented by Sri Vinay Malviya, learned standing counsel of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
2. The twin prayers of the petitioner are :
(a) that the notice dated September 29, 1992, photocopy whereof is Annexure-9 to the petition, so far as it relates to the demand of Rs. 10.000 by way of compounding fee. be quashed : and
(b) that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 be directed to sanction the map submitted by him for construction of the first floor in the building, namely, 3 Baghambari Housing Scheme, Allahpur, Allahabad.
The petitioner contends that the demand of Rs. 10,000 by way of compounding fees is contrary to law.
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has raised unauthorised constructions on the ground floor of the building. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner himself approached the concerned authorities
for compounding of the offence of raising unauthorised constructions. Thus, the authorities were well within their bounds to pass order directing the compounding on payment of the prescribed compounding fees.
4. The matter of grant or refusal of the permission to compound an offence and fee therefor is regulated by Allahabad Development Authority Composition of Offences Bye-Laws. 1983 (hereinafter called the Bye-Laws) made in exercise of power under Section 57 (bb) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act). Bye-Law No. 3 of the Bye-laws provides that fee for different types of offences arising from different type of unauthorised construction, development, to be compounded under Section 32 of the Act shall be such as is laid down in Schedule I annexed to the Bye-Laws. In the first Schedule, the maximum compounding fees prescribed is Rs. 10,000.
5. In the instant case. Rs. 10,000 have been levied by way of compounding fees. Obviously, the compounding fees imposed on the petitioner is not beyond the limit fixed in the Schedule. The petitioner has not been able to show that the imposition and demand of Rs. 10,000 by way of compounding fees is contrary to law in any manner. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the demand of compounding fees made by the respondents is contrary to law, cannot be sustained.
6. So far as the prayer for direction to sanction the map submitted by the petitioner is concerned, it goes without saying that on deposit of compounding fees demanded from the petitioner, the respondents generally, and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 specifically, shall be obliged to sanction the map of the petitioner in accordance with law.
7. Subject to what has been stated above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to costs.