- (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.12.2002 (copy annexure 1 to the writ petition), passed by Secretary, Mussorie Dehradun Development Authority (re­spondent no. 3), order dated 24.10 2003 (copy annexure 3 to the writ petition), passed by Commissioner & Chairman, Mussorie Dehradun Development Au­thority and order dated 07.10.2004 (copy annexure 5 to the writ petition), passed by Government of Uttarakhand.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, coun­ter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed on their behalf. Brief facts of the case, as nar­rated in the writ petition, are that Mussorie Dehradun Development Authority (for short hereinafter referred as MDDA) issued a notice to the petitioner for demolition of room/godown meas­uring 10 x 38 ft., room measuring 13 x 11 ft. and a hall measuring 22 x 23 ft. In response of said notice, petitioner moved an application for compounding of construction and for sanctioning of the map. Vide order dated 27.12.2002, MDDA (respondent no. 3) rejected the application for compounding and issued directions to demolish the constructions in question. Aggrieved by said order the petitioner preferred an appeal (No. 239 of 2002-03) before the Commissioner and Chairman, MDDA. The said authority vide its order dated 24.10.2003 rejected the appeal. Consequently, the petitioner filed a revision (No. 43 of 2003) before the State Government, which was also dismissed vide order dated 07.10.2004. Hence, this writ petition, challenging the orders on the ground that the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing. It is further alleged that the respondent no. 3 has no jurisdiction to go into the title of the land on which the constructions are raised. It is further alleged that re­jection of compounding application by the respondents is illegal.
(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, it is stated that the constructions were raised by the pe­titioner without getting sanctioned the plan from MDDA. Since the construc­tions were unauthorized, the petitioner was rightly given a show cause notice. It is further stated in the counter affida­vit that the petitioner was given oppor­tunity of hearing. It is also stated that the petitioner is not the owner of the land on which the disputed constructions are raised and as such the respondents were well within their rights to refuse the compounding of the constructions raised by him (petitioner).;