IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 676 of 2008 (M/S) Mahipal Singh S/O Sh. Mahendra Singh, R/O Gangapur Road, Shelja Farm Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. …… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Urban Development, Uttarakhand, Dehradun and two others. … Respondents. Sri S.K.Agarwal, Senior Advocate, with Sri Gopal K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State-respondents. Date April 23, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Sri Shashi Kant Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Sri Gopal K.Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. This writ petition has been filed for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 4- 4-2008 (Annexure 1A B) passed by the respondent no.3. According to the petitioner, lease of plot no. 20 area 10 Acres of Khasra nos. 66, 67, 69 and 70 Shelja Farm Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar was granted to Jiwanti Shah by the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh. Subsequently after creation of new State of Uttarakhand, the government framed a policy regarding the conversion of the lease land into freehold and consequently, a sale deed was executed in favour of Jiwanti Shah by the District Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar on behalf of the Governor of the State and she was directed to execute mortgage bond of four plots mentioned above. According to the petitioner, on 12-9-2006 the District Magistrate directed the Prescribed Authority not to pass any order regarding sale-purchase, sanction of map and mutation of 2 the land in question. On 13-9-2006, the Prescribed Authority without giving show cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing, cancelled the permission granted to the petitioner. The order was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1265(M/B) of 2006 by Ms. Jiwanti Shah and ultimately the order of the District Magistrate dated 13-9-2006 was quashed vide order dated 2-4-2007. The petitioner applied for sanction of map for construction of his own house before the respondent no.3- Prescribed Authority and all formalities were got completed by the petitioner. On 18-9-2007 the petitioner sent a notice as required under the Regulation of Building Operation Act inquiring about the sanction of map. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,180/- as development charges for sanction of map. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Prescribed Authority issued show cause notice in Form B as per provision of Section 10 of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 (Annexure No.1) without any authority. I have perused the show cause notice issued by the Prescribed Authority, wherein the petitioner has been directed to show cause as to why the alleged illegal construction as referred to in the notice be not demolished and fixed 26-4-2008 in the matter. In my view, the proper recourse open to the petitioner was to file objection against the show cause notice and he may avail appropriate remedy as provided under the aforesaid Act for redressal of his grievance. In the circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits, the petitioner may file objection against the show cause notice before the Prescribed Authority and the petitioner shall also appear on the date fixed. If objection is filed by the petitioner, the 3 same shall be decided by the authority concerned after hearing the petitioner within a period of four weeks. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of finally. All pending applications stand disposed of. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 4 5 6