- (1.) THIS writ petition is in effect directed against the Public Works Department, Aligarh and the Municipal Board, Aligarh, the two respondents, ar rayed in the writ petition. The petitioner seeks certiorari to quash the order dated 9. 5. 1994 passed in proceeding No. 38 under sub-clause 13 (2) of the U. P. Road Side Land Control Act, 1945.
(2.) THE issue is that upon a notice which was given to the petitioner to resist con struction next to a road, the petitioner took law in her hands and completed the con struction. THE construction was a shop. THE petitioner says that she had purchased the shop in 1984. THE notice from the Public Works Department (P. W. D.) addressed to the petitioner is dated 9. 5. 1994, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. By this notice issued by the Collector, Aligarh, the petitioner had also been cautioned that the construction on progress, if not removed, will be demolished. THE petitioner continued with her action. Ultimately, she was required to appear before the Court of the S. D. M. /prescribed Authority, under the Act aforesaid. The construction which the petitioner was making on the plot which she had purchased in the year 1984, was on the road side of Chandausi Tatpur Kot Marg, Aligarh - Anoopshahar Marg at 99 Km. hec- tomecre-2. The construction is 4. 80 metre away from the centre of the road. The order which has been sought to be impugned, records that the petitioner asserts and claims her rights through a sale-deed. The S. D. M. has also recorded that nothing has been produced before him so as to ensure that the construction was prior to the notification. The site was inspected by the S. D. M. /prescribed Authority himself. The S. D. M. records that the construction in question was within the regulated area of the P. W. D. she was directed to remove the construction, otherwise, the P. W. D. were given orders to remove these constructions.
(3.) BEFORE the Court, it has been argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the area is densely populated and no reason has been given why the petitioner was singled out for proceeding in removing the construction or her occupation on the present site. In running an administration there is no inequality from where an ad ministrative action may begin in taking care of an illegality as the issue clearly is to make the petitioner conform to the law. The notice which the petitioner received had already indicated to her that she had proceeded with the construction without the permission of the Collector. Even to day as submissions are made in this matter before the Court, it is accepted that the construction was made without permission. The petitioner took the law in her own hands and must face the risk and consequen ces. It is on record by a survey of the P. W. D. and on this the petitioner is not at issue that her constructions are only 4. 80 metre away from" the centre on the road. This in itself is a bad situation. The peti tioner does not deny that it is a public street. The manner in which the petitioner at tempted to squat on either side of the road, persons like petitioner will choke the street and the purpose for which it is laid i. e. passage, streets and roads are public places.;