IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 5955 (M/S) of 2001 (Old No.11969/1995) Kedar Singh …Petitioner Versus Prescribed Authority, R.A. Pithoragarh and others …Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Gopal Narain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Kumar, the learned brief holder for the State and Sri Rajeev Singh Bisht, the learned counsel for the State Road Transport Corporation. It transpires that the petitioner purchased six Muthis of land in plot no. 601 by means of a registered sale deed dated 3.3.1986 in village Shadela Moh, District Pithoragarh. Pursuant to the purchase of the plot, the petitioner applied under Section 7 of the U.P. Regulation of Building Operations Act, 1958, for erecting a residential building. It is alleged that the permission was granted by the authority on 7th October, 1988, and, based on the sanctioned plan, a double-storeyed residential building was constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plan. It transpires that adjoining the land in question, the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (now called Uttarakhand State Road Transport Corporation) had its own land. The State Road Transport Corporation made a complaint that the petitioner has encroached upon their land and 2 proceedings for eviction for unauthorized occupation should be initiated. It also transpires that the Corporation also filed a complaint dated 18.11.1989 before the Controlling Authority under the Act of 1958 alleging encroachment of their land. Two proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint made by the Transport Corporation; one under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972; and the other proceedings were initiated under the U.P. Regulation of Building Operations Act, 1958. The proceedings initiated under the Act of 1972 was quashed and the Prescribed Authority, by its order dated 3.3.1994, held that only one Muthi of land was owned by the State Road Transport Corporation and six Muthis of land was owned by the petitioner, and that, the Corporation had encroached upon the land of the petitioner by making a road. This order has become final and was not questioned by the State Road Transport Corporation. However, on the basis of the complaint made by the Transport Corporation dated 18.11.1989, the Controlling Authority directed investigation into the matter and, by an order dated 17th January, 1992, held that the question as to whether the road is on the land of the petitioner or is on the land of the Road Transport Corporation, could not be adjudicated in these proceedings, but, passed an order on the basis of an inspection report that the construction raised by the petitioner was not in 3 accordance with the sanctioned plan, and that, the petitioner had encroached upon the road of the State Road Transport Corporation by 32 feet and 2 inches, which was required to be removed, and consequently, directed the petitioner to remove the construction. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, preferred an appeal, which was rejected on the same grounds. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that once the authority indicates that they are not in a position to adjudicate as to whether the road in question is on the land of the petitioner or on the land of the Corporation, no finding can be given by the authority that the petitioner had encroached 32 feet and 2 inches of the road of the Corporation. In the opinion of the Court, this finding becomes patently perverse. Secondly, the Court finds that how and why and on what basis, the petitioner had violated the sanction plan is not clear. Only a general finding has been given that the construction raised by the petitioner was not in accordance with the sanctioned plan. This finding appears to be patently vague and is based on no material. Thirdly, the Court finds that the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 has given a categorical finding that the Corporation has, in fact, encroached upon the land of the petitioner by making a road and this finding has not been considered by the authority under the Act of 1958. 4 In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order passed under Section 10 of the Act of 1958 and, the appellate order directing removal of the construction, cannot be sustained and are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 06-09-2010 Salim/