R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) HEARD .
(2.) PETITIONER has challenged the order dated 6.10.2006 (Annexure 2), passed by respondent No. 5, in case No. A/E, 112/06, directing her to remove unauthorised construction over 2206 sq.ft. of the leased land. The parties agreed that Sec. 4 -A in the said order is a typographical mistake for Sec. 5 - A. Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on being asked, admitted that petitioner has made constructions over the leased premises. However, it was submitted that the same was not unauthorised, as per the lease agreement. It was further submitted that copy of the complaint/report, on the basis of which the said case was started, was not supplied to the petitioner; that the said order is non -speaking order; and that the Estate Officer (respondent No. 5) was not appointed in accordance with law and therefore he had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.
(3.) MR . Rajiv Ranjan, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, submitted that in the notice dated 7.9.2006 (Annexure 1) itself, the grounds for issuing the notice and the details of unauthorised construction was clearly mentioned. Admittedly, petitioner made constructions over the leased land without any permission. He further submitted that the order impugned has been passed in terms of Sec. 5 -A(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (the Act for short). He also submitted that if the lessees are allowed to make constructions on the lease hold premises in hap -hazard and unauthorized manner and without permission of the Town Planner, the whole purpose of having a planed township will be frustrated.;