RAVI S.DHAVAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a case from Dehradun. The matter relates to certain constructions which have been treated unauthorised by the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority and consequently ordered for demolition. The first order which has been impugned is dated 24 November 1986, Annexure -1 to the Writ petition, in proceedings No. 2 of 1984, 571 of 1986, in the matter of Sardar Rajendra Singh, 49/2, Nari Shilp Mandir Marg, Dehradun. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner, Dehradun, acting as the appellate authority of the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority. The appeal was numbered as R. B. C. No. 6 of 1986 -87. The appellate decision is dated 9th November 1987, Annexure -6 to the writ petition. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to impugn these decisions and desires that they be quashed and submits that there is no illegality in his action of the constructions which he has made having been declared as unauthorised and ordered for demolition by the authorities, aforesaid.
(2.) THE Court has heard at length, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Tandon, and Mr. Ashok Mohiley, appearing on behalf of the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, the respondents. Of facts on which there is no issue is that next to the Nari Shilp Mandir Chakrata Road, in Dehradun, certain constructions were in progress by the petitioner and amidst activities of constructions, he received a notice that he must desist from making the constructions, for which he has taken no permission of the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority and whatever he has constructed must be demolished. It was indicated to the petitioner that these constructions are within the development zone and further within the spectrum of the width of road widening. At the time when the petitioner was putting a concrete slab on the roof, for the purposes of putting a first floor above the ground floor he was cautioned to stop the constructions. But, he continued. These are facts on record in the impugned order, dated 24 November 1986.
(3.) THE aspects on which submissions have been submitted before the Court on behalf of the petitioner are (a) that the proceedings whether before the prescribed authority under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development. Act 1973 are without notice, (b) the constructions are not unauthorised and (c) submitted as an alternative, that in case the two submissions made are not acceptable, then the constructions be considered for compounding now.;