R.S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) A construction on the third storey of a building in a locality known as Kaisthan, Saharanpur is the subject matter of this writ petition. The Municipal Board has denied permission to the petitioner, Bhagwat Prasad, one of the co -owners of the house to construct a room as the third storey up to the second storey there is no issue. The construction of a third storey, a room is the controversy in this petition. The facts on record are thus: The Court notices from the record that the Municipal Board had at the very inception checked the petitioner to refrain from building activity over the second storey. The petitioner did not pay heed to the warnings of the Municipal Board. He continued with the constructions and, thus, invited a notice dated 31st October, 1968 that he must desist from carrying out the constructions and remove whatever he has constructed. On this notice, the petitioner made an endorsement declaring as an explanation that he was repairing the old house and also constructing some new rooms. Thus he accepted that what was under construction is without permission. Four days after the receipt of the notice, on 4th November, 1968 he wrote a letter to the Chairman Municipal Board, Saharanpur referring to the notice dated 31st October, 1968. In this letter he refers to having submitted a map seeking sanction for the constructions be was carrying out. The map. was submitted on 29th October, 1968. In this letter the petitioner also mentions that he had construction material stored for carrying out repairs and that the material was likely to deteriorate. Thus, he sought recall of the notice.
(2.) THE petitioner did not fall in line with the law even when he was caught. It is accepted to the petitioner that the map he had submitted for seeking sanction of the constructions carries the same date as the date of the notice, of which he was seeking a recall. The petitioner had already violated the law. That the petitioner had been carrying out constructions unauthorisedly without sanction is not a matter in issue but one of record. The sanction which the petitioner received is dated 13th January, 1969. But, the sanction which was permitted to the petitioner became a subject matter of an appeal under Section 318 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 by a co -owner of the same building.
(3.) THE law permits an objection to any person interested in the locality whether he is a co -owner or a rate -payer, Prem Prakash who filed an appeal before the District Magistrate, Saharanpur had the status to object. He is the co -owner and a rate payer both In the appeal before him, under Section 318 of the Act; aforesaid, the District Magistrate records that the constructions were made by Bhagwat Prasad, without the approval of the plans by the Municipal Board, as prescribed by the byelaws the objections of the co -owner were not taken into consideration when the unauthorised constructions were approved by the Municipal Board the third storey could only be made if the house was at the edge of the street. The District Magistrate was of the opinion that the order sanctioning the map for the third storey, particularly, was too sketchy and not consistent with the byelaw. The matter was remanded to the Municipal Board for examining the matter de novo and the matter of sanctioning the constructions to be considered strictly in accordance with the bye laws. The order of the District Magistrate is dated 22 -5 -1969.;