- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
(2.) BY means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 28-2-1992, 30-1-1993 and 24-5-1993 passed by respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased plots No. 63/10, 64/11 and 65/12 through sale deeds dated 12-12-1957, 17-12-1957 and 16-7-1957 respectively from one Tarkeshwar Pandey and others. It is alleged that the petitioner came in possession over the alleged land through the sale deeds. A map was submitted to the Municipal Board, Ballia for construction of a house, which was sanctioned by the Municipal Board, Ballia in January, 1959. The petitioner made temporary construction on the disputed land and erected its boundary walls and thereafter started to live there. After the execution of the sale deeds, one Vijay Shankar, brother of Lal Mohan Sinha filed Suit No. 19 of 1958, which was contested by the petitioner denying the claim of the plaintiff. The said suit was dismissed in default. The contention of the petitioner is that he was the employee in the consolidation department and after retirement he decided to build the construction, on the aforesaid land purchased by him in the year 1957. Lal Mohan Sinha, brother of Vijay Shankar had instituted another Suit No. 551 of 1990 alongwith an application for temporary injunction in the Court of Munsif East, Ballia in which an order for maintaining status quo was passed.
(3.) IT is averred that the proceedings instituted by Lal Mohan Sinha against the petitioner under Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Building Operation Act, 1958 referred as U. P. Act No. XXXIV of 1958, were illegal, but he had managed to get a false report dated 31-12-1991 from the Junior Engineer, Ballia for proceeding under U. P. Act No. XXXIV of 1958 regarding construction made by the petitioner. Notice was issued to the petitioner on 2-1-1992 fixing 28-2-1992 to show cause regarding construction made by the petitioner. The notice was issued to the petitioner at his home address to the Police Station Sikanderpur while petitioner's village came within Police Station Pakari. IT is contended that the Station Officer sent this notice to Police Station Pakari on 23-2-1992 and thereafter the said notice was sent to petitioner's village on 6-3-1992 and received by him at Ballia on 7-3-1992. IT is submitted that in the mean time the Prescribed Authority passed an order dated 28-2-1992 without hearing the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 15 (2) of U. P. Act No. XXXIV of 1958, which was dismissed on 30-1-1993 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by an order dated 24-5-1993. In the aforesaid back drop it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice issued by the Prescribed Authority for demolition of boundary walls and the tin-shed is wholly illegal and the impugned orders have been passed by respondents No. 1 and 2, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and are hit by the principles of natural justice. He has further submitted that the report relied upon by the appellate Court and the revisional Court, was prepared ex parte without any notice to the petitioner and the map for boundary walls and house which has already been sanctioned by the Municipal Board, Ballia and as such the order for demolition of boundary walls and tin shed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is illegal. Lastly it has been contended that in view of the subsequent letter/order of the U. P. Government, no sanction of map is required if the area of land is upto 100 sq. metres and if the area is between 100 and 300 sq. metres, then the map submitted by the person shall be automatically deemed to be sanctioned. The area of petitioner's plot is 32 feet x 39 feet and as such there was no necessity to get the map sanctioned. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention in 1982 (8) ALR 443, Jai Ram Lal Srivastava v. State of U. P. In this case it has been dealing with the provisions of Sections 9, 10 and 12 of the U. P. Regulation of Building Operation Act, it was held that the proceedings for demolition should be taken only in respect of objectionable constructions or the constructions made in contravention of any Regulation under the Act. The demolition order should be made only after giving opportunity of being heard to the aggrieved party. It has further been held in the aforesaid case that the Act nowhere enables the authorities to investigate and determine any dispute between private parties with regard to the land over which the constructions stand or are to be sanctioned or permitted. Any application moved for permission for setting up of construction in a regulated area has to be dealt with under Section 7 of the Act.;