D.P.Singh, J. - (1.) The present writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 10 of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 by which the orders passed for demolition of the constructions of the petitioner have been challenged.
(2.) The petitioner vide a registered agreement dated 15.4.1975 had purchased plot No. 146/1 having an area of 3 biswas and 10 dhurs. After the aforesaid purchase the petitioner moved an application under Section 180 of the U.P. Municipalities Act for sanction of the plan for construction. This sanction was granted by the Municipal Board vide its order dated 25.2.1982. It is submitted that the constructions started in February/March, 1982. One Kapildeo Gupta moved an application under Section 133, CrPC in respect of the construction on 20.1.1983 and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate vide its order dated 25.1.1983 directed for registering a case and issued notices to the petitioner. During the proceedings, the Naib-Tehsildar submitted its report dated 11.4.1983, which report was in favour of the petitioner and thus the proceedings were dropped vide order dated 21.3.1984. In the meanwhile U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force in district Basti on 14.10.1983. Again one Ram Chandra father of the respondent No. 5 filed a suit No. 67 of 1985 for injunction and demolition of the disputed constructions. After the petitioner filed his reply, the trial Court vide its order dated 2.4.1985 refused the interim injunction. An appeal against the aforesaid order was also dismissed on 16th May, 1985. The suit itself was dismissed in 1987. Thereafter, the respondent No. 5 son of the plaintiff of suit No. 67 of 1975 made an application dated 7.5.1985 before the Prescribed Authority claiming that the petitioner was constructing his house in a regulated area without sanction of map. On issuance of show cause notice under Section 10 of the Act dated 30.5.1985, the petitioner filed a detailed objection against the said notice. The Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 30.7.1986 held that the petitioner did not possess sanctioned map and, therefore, the constructions going on where illegal. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Controlling Authority which vide its order dated 29.8.1986 after coming to the conclusion that there was sanctioned map remanded the matter back to the Prescribed Authority. Against the aforesaid, the respondent No. 5 filed a revision under Section 15-A of the Act, which was allowed vide order dated 24.1.1987 and the case was remanded before the Controlling Authority. After remand the Controlling Authority again deliberated upon the matter and came to the conclusion as earlier and again remanded the matter vide order dated 16.6.1987 before the Prescribed Authority. Yet again the respondent No. 5 filed revision against the order dated 16th June, 1987 and again the Government vide its order dated 21st August, 1987 remanded the matter to the Controlling Authority. On second remand the Controlling Authority vide his order dated 15th September, 1988 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 30.7.1986. It held that the order of the Government was clear that the sanctioned map of the petitioner had expired on 25.8.1983 and further that there is no provision in the Municipalities Act that if the construction was stopped by a stay order, the duration of validity of the map would automatically stand extended. The petitioner thus filed a revision before the State Government which has been dismissed by an order dated 3rd December, 1988. It are these orders dated 30.7.1986, 15.9.1988 and 3.12.1988 which are under challenge before this Court.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged firstly that in pursuance of the sanctioned map the petitioner had started construction which was stopped by different authorities, therefore, the vlaidity of the map had not expired. Secondly, he submits that once the map had been sanctioned and construction started, there was no necessity for the petitioner to apply again on the enforcement of the Act in district Basti.;