CHANDRASHEKHAR,J. - (1.) Petitioners' grievance is that the respondent no. 4 developer has made illegal constructions which have been condoned by the respondent Mineral Area Development Authority, illegally. The petitioners seek quashing of orders dated 29.04.2016 and 04.05.2014/24.05.2014.
(2.) In so far as challenge to order dated 04.05.2014/24.05.2014 is concerned, the writ petition fails in view of the fact that the said order was challenged by the petitioners in appeal in which order dated 29.04.2016 has been passed. The appellate order is not an order dismissing the appeal as not maintainable and therefore, in the present proceeding challenge to order dated 29.04.2016 alone survives. After availing remedy of appeal, the petitioner cannot challenge legality of order dated 04.05.2014/24.05.2014 in the present proceeding.
(3.) Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the original order dated 04.05.2014/24.05.2014 proceeds on a premise as if the Ordinance of 2011 covers the illegal constructions made thereafter whereas, the said Ordinance was intended to regularize the constructions which were made in excess of the sanctioned map/plan prior to the date when the Ordinance was promulgated on 09.05.2011.;