- (1.) THIS is a matter from. Hardwar where the petitioner desires that the notices issued to him by Hardwar Development Authority dated 28, September, 1993 and 18 October, 1993, annexures 6 and 7 respectively, demanding compounding the of, Rs. 2,67,588/- for making the illegal constructions, be quashed.
(2.) THE Court has heard counsel for the petitioner Sri S. N. Kesarwani and Sri P. M. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Hardwar Development Authority. The Court neither agrees with the petitioner nor with the respondents. Of the illegalities which the petitioner has committed by making constructions without permission, the Hardwar Development Authority seems to have compromised the situation and nakedly watched the construction of a building which was not supposed to be made completed and then belittling and compromising its status as a Development Authority to compound a construction which had been made illegally.
(3.) AS far as the writ petition concerned it is devoid of details on what exactly is the title of the petitioner to the land on which the constructions were made illegally and without permission. The petitioner avoids giving this essential fact to the Court and the Hardwar Development Authority has made no effort to find out the petitioners ownership on the area where the constructions were attempted and later completed despite notice to the petitioner. The first notice is dated 30-6-1993, Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It cautions that the building opposite Mayur Hotel, Upper Road, Hardwar, being made without a sanction plan, the constructions as on that day being the basement and the ground floor cease forthwith. One aspect is very relevant that at the time when this notice was delivered to the petitioner a basement had been dug and was under construction alongwith the ground floor. How did the petitioner proceed with the construction to complete the entire building when he had already been cautioned to stop the construction. The petitioner completed the construction in the face of this notice. He violated the law. Both law and equity are against the petitioner.;