ANJANI KUMAR, SABHAJEET YADAV, J. - (1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has sought relief of writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 10th July, 1986, contained in Annexure-6 of the writ petition, whereby the complaint made by the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the U.P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as the 1945 Act) has been rejected and proceedings were dropped by the Prescribed Authority under the 1945 Act holding that the approval of disputed construction has already been given by the Prescribed Authority under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 1958 Act) and accordingly the constructions raised by petitioner could not be held to be illegal and unauthorised under the provisions of the 1945 Act.
(2.) THE facts of the case of brief are that Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. Provincial Division has moved an application under Section 13(2) of the 1945 Act before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Etah-Prescribed Authority under the 1945 Act with the allegation that respondent No. 1, M/s. Agarwal Brothers has made an unauthorised construction over G.T. Road, Etah at Delhi-Kanpur Road at 206 Kms. within a distance of 20 metre 50 cm. and 17 metre 20 cm. from the centre line of the road, which had been notified on 29.6.1954 under the 1945 Act and had been declared as controlled area for the purpose of said 1945 Act. After hearing the parties, Sub-Divisional Magistrate-Prescribed Authority under the 1945 Act, has held that from perusal of photostat copy of permission granted by the Prescribed Authority of Regulated Area under 1958 Act, it is clear that the permission of disputed construction has been granted on 10.8.1984 and the map of said construction has also been sanctioned according to rules framed under 1958 Act, the Prescribed Authority accordingly dropped the proceedings, hence this petition. Heard learned Standing Counsel Sri Awadhesh Narain Shukla for the petitioner and Sri Swapnil Kumar for the contesting private respondent No. 1.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel Sri Awadhesh Narain Shukla, on the basis of assertions made in the pleading of writ petition, has vehemently submitted that the aforesaid finding of Prescribed Authority, under challenge, is wholly erroneous and perverse for simple reason that the prior permission of Collector in writing was essential under Section 5 of 1945 Act before raising the disputed construction in controlled area which is covered by notification issued under Section 3 of the 1945 Act otherwise such construction would be unauthorised and illegal, instead thereof permission given by the Prescribed Authority for disputed construction under the 1958 Act cannot afford any justification for said construction, as such would be of no avail to the contesting respondents. Contrary to it, Sri Swapnil Kumar, Advocate appearing for private contesting respondent has submitted that the provisions of Section 17 of the 1958 Act has overriding effect over the provisions of any other law in force at the commencement of the said Act and since both the Acts are enactments of Uttar Pradesh Legislature on the same subject, therefore, being later in point of time, the 1958 Act has overriding effect over the provisions of the 1945 Act, thus, permission granted by the Prescribed Authority under the provisions of the 1958 Act for disputed construction would be sufficient justification even for the purpose of the 1945 Act as well.;