NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 31st January, 2004 passed by respondent No. 3 in Misc. Appeal No. 7 of 1999, dismissing the appeal for default and also for quashing the order dated 18th January, 1999 passed in U.C. Case No. 178 of 1996, whereby the respondent No. 2 has directed to demolish the construction of the petitioner holding the construction as unsanctioned.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he is recorded tenant and the house, in question, was in existence since long and had been entered in the revisional survey record of right, published in the year 1935, The house, in question, is thus standing since several decades, since before the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act, 2001 came into existence. It has been stated that the petitioner has not made any construction after coming into force of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1974 and as such, there is no question of making any unsanctioned construction, as alleged by the respondents. The respondents, at the instance of one Md. Ashiruddin, who is the petitioners neighbour, wanted to disturb the petitioners possession arbitrarily. A notice under Section 54(i) of the said Act was issued to the petitioner, asking him to show cause as to why the unauthorised construction be not demolished over R.S. Plot No. 185 of village Hirtco, Ranchi. The petitioner appeared and filed his reply to the show cause notice. It has been stated that without giving any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the said case was disposed of by the Vice -Chairman vide his order dated 18th January, 1999. Against the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, being Misc. Appeal No. 7 of 1999.
(3.) FOR want of forum, the Bench of the Tribunal was not available for hearing on several dates when the petitioner had appeared. The petitioner could not know the date when the appeal was suddenly taken up for hearing by the Tribunal and as such could not respond to the call. In result, the appeal was dismissed for non -appearance. The petitioner, thus, was prevented from placing his case before the appellate forum due to the said reason and circumstance beyond his control.;