A.N. Varma, J. - (1.) This Petition is directed against the order dated 29.6.1985 passed by the Competent Authority under the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad directing removal of certain constructions stated to have been unauthorisedly made by the Petitioner plot No. 528/3.
(2.) The order is challenged on two grounds : first, that the impugned order was passed without any notice to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 82 (1) of the aforesaid Act; second, that the order has been made without any application of mind. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the Petition is well as the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, we find no merit in either of these contentions. So far as the first ground is concerned, we find that there is a categorical and uncontroverted assertion in the counter affidavit that before passing the impugned order a notice fixing 17.12.1984 for showing cause why the unauthorised constructions made by the Petitioner over the disputed land should not be removed was actually served on the Petitioner, but he did not file any objection. When the Petitioner failed to show cause, the Competent Authority passed the order dated 9.4.1985 (A true copy where of is Annexure C.A.3) directing the removal of the constructions within seven days of the date of service of the order. This order was also served on the Petitioner through the process server of the Competent Authority. The Petitioner had declined to account the service of the order on 17.4.1985. There upon it was sent to the petitioner by registered Post which too was returned with an endorsement "not met, out of Station." The Competent Authority thereafter again sent the order through a special messenger to the Petitioner on 29.6.85 and again the Petitioner refused to accept it. The refusal was endorsed by two witnesses Sundar Singh and Narendra, where upon the order was posted on the disputed construction itself on 29.6.85 in die presence of those witnesses.
(3.) These facts have remained uncontroverted. Upon these facts it is impossible to hold that the Petitioner was not afforded any opportunity nor served with the notice contemplated under Section 82 (1) of the Act.;