B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) BY the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the impugned order dated 21st February, 1933 passed under Section 13(2) of the U.P. Road Side Land Control Act, 1945 (for short the Act) by the city Magistrate, Rampur is sought to be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari. The Petitioner is said to have contravened the provisions of section 5 of the Act inasmuch as he has raised a construction in the controlled area without previous permission of the Collector in writing. Consequently a notice was issued to him directing as to why not the penalty provided under Section 13 (thirteen; of the Act be imposed upon him.
(2.) THE Petitioner replied the notice and also led evidence to the effect that in 1931 his father had purchased the land and there was no construction. On behalf of the State of U.P., evidence was led to prove the declaration of the controlled area as provided under Section 3 of the Act and this was also proved that between Kms. 208 and 209 on Delhi -Bareilly road at a distance of 10 Mtrs. from the centre of the road, the Petitioner has constructed a hotel and raised construction in plot no. 81, this place was earlier vacant. The Petitioner was also served with a notice to stop the construction but he did not comply with the notice. Other evidence was also led to prove the case against the Petitioner. On behalf of the Petitioner, two witnesses were examined and the copy of the sale -deed was also filed. The witnesses stated that the hotel of the Petitioner was situate beyond the limit of the Town Area. Hence he was not liable for any penalty.
(3.) AFTER considering the entire evidence on She record, the learned City Magistrate, Rampur disbelieved the evidence of the Petitioner and believed the evidence of led by the State and it was held that the land in dispute was within the controlled area as declared under Section 3 of the Act and that the Petitioner had raised the construction without the permission in writing obtained from the Collector as envisaged by section 5 of the Act. The impugned order was passed to the effect that the Petitioner has raised the construction without permission of the Collector in writing and the Petitioner was directed to demolish the construction within three months from the date of the impugned order otherwise he shall be dispossessed by force and the expenses incurred in that connection would be recoverable from the Petitioner as arrears of land revenue.;