R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) COMPETENT Authority U.P. Avas and Vikas Parishad Kanpur, issued a notice dated 18.4.1984 to the Petitioner, calling upon her to show cause as to why the construction referred to therein be not demolished. Petitioner submitted her reply, copy of which has been filed as Annexure II to the writ petition. The concerned authority thereafter passed an order dated 14.5.1984, rejecting the representation and directing the Petitioner to demolish the said construction and further providing that on her failure to do so, it will be demolished by the competent authority at her cost. Being aggrieved by it, Petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(2.) THE Respondents have filed counter -affidavit and the Petitioner has filed rejoinder -affidavit in reply thereto. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. In the notice (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), the unauthorised constructions referred to are the boundary wall and one room of 8 x 3.50 feet. in her objection, the Petitioner has stated, inter alia, that over the plot in dispute, Smt. Chameli Devi has constructed a house, which was assessed to local taxes by the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur and the number of that house was 175, which was later on changed to 197; that she purchased the said house from Smt. Chameli Devi by registered sale deed, executed on 11.11.1983 and her name has been mutated in the record of the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur on 2.7.1984; that her house does not fall within the scheme notified by Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and that she being the lady is being harassed unnecessarily by the officials of the Parishad. The competent authority has passed the order on a cyclostyled form in which it has been mentioned that her objection is devoid of merit, not containing sufficient reason. Notice issued and the order passed in pursuance thereof for demolition of any property under Section 82 read with Section 83 of U.P. Avas and Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 seriously affects the person, who is the owner of the property, sought to be demolished. Therefore, the order rejecting the objection of such a person must contain reasons. in the instant case, the order merely contain the conclusion and does not contain any reason. Petitioner's objection is specific and contains the details. It should not have been rejected by a cyclostyled order. Authorities should have applied mind to the objections raised by the Petitioner and should have passed a speaking order. This order, as such, has to be set aside.
(3.) AS we are setting aside the order and remanding the matter to the concerned authority, it is not necessary to go into other questions, which have been raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. It will be open to the Petitioner to raise all such pleas before the competent authority. The authority will decide the matter afresh by a speaking order after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner.;