M.N. Shukla, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to demolish the constructions of shops No. 92 to 99 and 191 situate in Mohalla Govindganj, Sadar Bazar, Shahjahanpur.
(2.) THE respondents arrayed in the writ petition are the Municipal Board, Shahjahanpur, the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur and th6 Executive Engineer, Shahjahanpur. The allegations of the petitioner are that on the basis of a duly submitted plan sanctioned by the Municipal Board, Shahjahanpur he built the shops in question about ten years ago, that there is a Municipal Patri and a fairly wide road thereafter and behind the shops there is a Nala. It is alleged that the petitioner had been paying every months to the respondent No. 1, viz. the Board the required rent of the land which had been leased to him, that he made valuable constructions long ago but the employees of the respon dent Board had arrived on the spot and made measurement of the same and held out threat to demolish the front portion of the ground floor constructions of the aforesaid, shops, that no notice of any kind had been issued to or served on him. Two counter affidavits were filed in the case, one on behalf of the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur which merely stated that-the action for demolition of the constructions if any, was taken by the Municipal Board in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), that no such action was being taken by the respondent No. 2 or at his instance. The other counter affidavit, which was filed on behalf of the Municipal Board, contains a factual reply to the allegations made in the writ petition. It is admitted by the Board that the shops in question were allotted to the petitioner on a nominal rent and in front of those shops an open space Chabutra was left which was neither originally allotted to the petitioner nor was any rent being charged for the same. It was further stated that the demolition sought to be done was only in respect of the portion and projections made beyond the shops which were originally constructed and allotted. It was also stated in the same counter affidavit that the lawful constructions initially made had been unlawfully extended and the Chabutra etc. Made in front of the shops, which were meant for being used for public purposes, had been illegally included in the new constructions raised by the petitioner. As regards the notice, the averments made in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit of the Board are that the answering respondent duly published their intention to demolish the illegal constructions in the daily Hindi newspaper "Amar Ujala" which had a large circulation in the city of Shahjahanpur. It was added that leaflets were also largely distributed within the Municipal limits of the city in which it was clearly stated that the illegal construc tions had already been marked out in the city and they should be removed by the illegal occupants themselves. Besides, it was alleged that cinema slides were exhibited in a local picture hall the same effect and publicity was also made in the city through loud speakers.
(3.) IT is manifest from the allegations made in the counter affidavit of the Board that if they were accepted, the present case would be one of encroachments and projections covered by section 211 of the U.P. Muni cipalities Act. For detailed reasons contained in our judgment dated 28-10-1976 in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1854 of 1976 we are of the opinion that on a proper construction the notice issued under section 211 of the U.P. Municipalities Act for removing projections must be a written notice to the individual owner or occupier of the alleged encroachment or projections.;