- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 14.07.2006 passed in Misc. Petition Nos. 10/06, 8/06, 5/06, 7/06, 9/06, 6/06, whereby the restoration applications have been dismissed. The petitioners have also prayed for setting aside the order dated 19.04.2006 ( Annexure-4) passed in Misc. Appeal Nos. 17/97, 18/97, 19/97, 23/97, 26/97 and 27/97, which were dismissed for non prosecution of the appeals. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders are passed in relation to Unauthorized Construction Case Nos. 97/89, 53/90, 83/90, 82/90, 121/89 and 57/90, initiated against the petitioners, which were decided against them by order dated 29.4.1991. Petitioners preferred Miscellaneous Appeals against the said order dated 29.4.1991, which were registered as Misc. Appeal Nos. 30/91, 31/91, 32/91, 36/91, 40/91 and 41/91 challenging the Master plan itself and these appeals were allowed by order dated 1993 remanding the cases back to the respondent-original authority for fresh consideration of the case vide Annexure-1. The Original Authority thereafter passed the order dated 106.1997 holding that the plots in question were part of the public open space as shown in the Master plan and after spot inspection on 3rd August 1996 no permission for any construction in the said open space can be allowed. The petitioners were directed to remove the encroachments as no post facto sanction could be allowed and therefore prayer for post facto sanction was rejected. The petitioners thereafter preferred appeals, as indicated in the first paragraph of this order, against the original order dated 106.1997. These appeals were dismissed for non prosecution vide order dated 104.2006 (Annexure-4). Thereafter, these petitioners preferred restoration applications being Misc. Petition Nos. 5/06, 6/06, 7/06, 8/06, 9/06 and 10/06. These Misc. Petitions have been dismissed by the impugned order dated 14.07.2006 and the appellate authority, RRDA has refused to hear the appeals on merits, which is not proper in the eyes of law. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondents-RRDA, however, submits that the facts recorded hereinabove are not in dispute that U.C. Case was registered in the year 1991 against all these petitioners and after remand by the appellate authority, again it was decided against these petitioners vide order dated 106.1997 as the petitioners were found to have involved in unauthorized construction over public open space as per the Master plan in operation. The appeals itself were preferred in the year 1996 and petitioners failed to prosecute the appeals, which would be apparent from the order sheet annexed and he has specifically taken this Court to the order dated 104.2006 passed in the said batch of misc. appeals wherein the learned Tribunal has categorically recorded that the appellants seem to have lost interest in pursing the appeals and have been absenting since long and accordingly the appeals were dismissed on account of non appearance of the appellants i.e. petitioners herein.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Respondents-RRDA points out to the impugned order dated 14.07.2006, passed in restoration applications vide Annexure-5 wherein also, after hearing the complainants- appellants, i.e. the petitioners herein, the learned Tribunal categorically recorded that all these appeals are related to the year 1996 and the appellants were not found to be appearing in most of the dates for last ten years. Thereafter the appeals were dismissed on 19.04.2006. The learned Tribunal therefore found no reason to revive the appeals while dismissing the restoration application by the impugned order hereinabove. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order and other materials on record, it is apparent that in respect of unauthorized construction, the petitioners have been continuing with litigation since 1991. The original authority twice decided the U.C. case against them and thereafter the appeals preferred by them remained pending for ten years because of lack of interest of these petitioners. Thereafter it was dismissed on account of non prosecution. These facts have been elaborately considered in the order dated 14.07.2006, passed by the learned Tribunal while rejecting the restoration application as well, vide Annexure-5. In these circumstances, the contention of the petitioners do not inspire confidence that they were seriously interested in pursing their remedy before the appropriate forum despite orders passed for removal of unauthorized constructions against them.;