IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1415 (M/S) of 2007 (Old No. 41903/2000) Vikram Singh Rawat …Petitioner Versus State and others …Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri R.P. Nautiyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.C. Bisht, the learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents. The petitioner was granted a lease on 1.10.1970 measuring 2 Nalis situated in Plot No. 291 in Village Gopeshwar in District Chamoli. As per the sanctioning order, the plot of land was located 50 ft. away from the middle of the road in the Khad. On this plot of land, the petitioner constructed a house. On 4th February, 1997 the petitioner applied before the sanctioning authority under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Building Operations Act, 1958 for construction of the first floor for the purpose of using it as a shop. This first floor would come up at the level of the road. The sanctioning authority asked for the report from the Nagar Palika, which submitted a report on 12th March, 1997 stating therein that they have no objection if construction is made on the first floor. The authority thereafter asked their own Junior Engineer to submit a report, which was submitted on 26th March, 1997. The Junior Engineer submitted a report indicating that the construction can be raised. The matter remained at that stage and no further communication was given by the regulating authority either accepting the application of the petitioner or rejecting it. Consequently, the petitioner raised the construction taking advantage of the provision of 2 Section 7(4) of the Act, which stipulates that if no order is passed by the sanctioning authority within the stipulated period of time, the map would be deemed to be sanctioned. After construction the regulating authority issued a notice dated 6th September, 1997 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why the alleged construction should not be demolished. The petitioner submitted his reply stating that he had applied for the proposed construction and upon the lapse of specified period as contemplated under Section 7(4) of the Act and also as per the verbal assurance given by the then prescribed authority, the petitioner had raised the construction. During the pendency, the petitioner also filed an application that in any case, the alleged construction may be compounded, for which the petitioner is willing to pay the compounding charges. The prescribed authority, after considering the material evidence on record, by its order dated 24th March, 2000, directed demolition of the construction on the ground that the same was constructed in violation of the provision of Section 6 of the Act and that no previous permission was taken by the petitioner. It was further stated that the prescribed authority also found that the area, on which the construction had been raised, had already been acquired by the PWD for widening of the road and consequently, no construction could be made nor the construction so raised can be compounded. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the District Magistrate, which was rejected, against which the petitioner preferred a revision, which was also 3 dismissed. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has consequently filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, the Court finds from a perusal of the impugned order that the regulating authority had informed the petitioner by a letter dated 17th April, 1997 that the PWD has raised an objection with regard to the proposed construction on the ground that the area had been acquired for road widening and therefore, construction is not possible. This fact has not been denied specifically in the writ petition, though an averment was made by the petitioner before the appellate authority to the effect that no such notice was never served upon the petitioner. The Court further finds from a perusal of the impugned order that the PWD had specifically appeared and filed their objection indicating therein that the land had been acquired for the road widening. The fact that the land had been acquired for the road widening has not been denied by the petitioner before this Court nor any such averment has been raised in any paragraph of the writ petition. Consequently, the Court finds that the fact that the land had been acquired for road widening has not been disputed by the petitioner. In the light of the aforesaid finding, the question of compounding the construction so raised cannot be allowed. The authority was justified in directing demolition of the construction. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the State Government without giving an opportunity of hearing dismissed the revision at the admission stage itself and that this was in gross violation of the provision of Section 15-A of the Act. 4 The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted inasmuch as no such averment has been raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. Even otherwise, the State Government can definitely reject the revision at the admission stage itself and it is only when the petition is admitted that a reasonable opportunity of being heard is provided to the party concerned. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court does not find any error in the impugned order. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. It is hereby directed that the petitioner would remove the construction so raised on the first floor within a period of two months from today as per the provision of Section 10 of the Act, failing which, it would be open to the opposite party concerned to demolish the construction so raised on the first floor at the expense of the petitioner. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 23-09-2011 Salim/