H.N.Seth, J. - (1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution Jai Ram Lal questions the validity of the order dated 26th August, 1977 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) passed by the Controlling Authority, Rehand Region, Mirzapur, rejecting petitioner's request for compounding the offence under the U.P. Regulations of Building Operation Act, if any, committed by him and directing that certain constructions set up by the petitioner be demolished. The petitioner has also questioned the validity of the order of the State Government dated 17th December, 1977, dismissing his revision application directed against Controlling Authority's order dated 26 August, 1977.
(2.) The petitioner was constructing a room in the shape of open varandah 10' x 9' on the first floor of his house. One Sarwar Ali moved an application dated 5th March, 1975 before the prescribed Authority, Rehand, through the Secretary, Corruption Eradication Samiti, Rotaertsganj alleging that the petitioner had after illegally encroaching upon his land constructed a barza which interfer-ed with has privacy and free ingress and egress for the ladies of the house The Prescribed Authority called for a report from the Inspector who inter alia reported that the petitioner was erecting the verandah 10' x 9' cat the first floor of his house without permission of the Prescribed Authority and that a door therein opened towards the house of Sarwar Ali which too was contrary to rules. The Prescribed Authority issued a notice dated 1st April, 1975, to the petitioner under Section 10 of the U.P. Regulations of Building Operation Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) requiring him to show cause why the said room in the shape of an open verandah 10' x 9' which he was erecting on the first floor of his house, be not directed to foe demolished. The petitioner contested the said notice by filing an objection dated 10th July, 1975 on the ground that the said construction was in accordance with the plan already sanctioned by the Prescribed Authority. IN paragraph 5 of Ms objection (Annexure-C A-3 to the counter-affidavit of Sarwar Ali) he mentioned that the said construction bad, by inadvertence, been omitted to be shown in the copy of the plan which had been submitted to the Prescribed Authority for sanction. He also claimed that he did not commit any mistake deliberately. In Paragraph 5 of the objection, the petitioner went, on to state that in any case the present one was a fit case for being compounded. In the proceedings (which?), had been initiated on the application filed on behalf of Sarwar Ali wherein it was claimed that the petitioner had encroached upon his land, the petitioner obtained orders from the Prescribed Authority for a fresh inspection of his constructions. This, time the Inspector submitted a report dated 27th October, 1976, to the effect that petitioner's construction stood on the area in respect of which his plan had been sanctioned but then it encroached upon a strip of land 2'-6'' in width which, did not belong either to the petitioner or to Sarwar Ali to the extent of 8.4". According, to the Inspector the said strip of land belonged to Nazul Department and both Sarwar Ali and the petitioner had agreed to construct a wall running in the centre of the said strip of land. Sarwar Ali had further agreed not to set up any construction under petitioner's barza.
(3.) Subsequently the petitioner moved an application dated 24th January, 1977 before the Commissioner Varanasi Division (Controlling Authority): praying, that in case it was found that the construction set up by him was unauthorised the case may, on payment of composition fees, be compounded, Afore-said prayer made by the petitioner was resisted by Smt. Budhni, mother of Sarwar Ali, who claimed that the matter should not be compounded as petitioner's construction encroached upon her land to the extent of 4'. The Controlling Authority called upon the Prescribed Authority submit its report. The Prescribed Authority vide its report dated 22nd August, 1977, reported that as the construction of the petitioner was an old one, it was not apt in these proceedings to investigate Smt. Budhni's (Sarwar Ali's mother) claim that the petitioner had encroached upon 4' broad strip of land; but then 2'-6" broad Barza constructed by the petitioner projected to the extent of 1'-8" on the land of Smt Budhni,;