RAM NARESH VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. H A. Raza, J. On 7-3-75 a notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 10 of the U. P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958, in which it was averred that the petitioner was carrying on erection of a building consisting of one storeyed house situated at Jail Road Rae Bareli without permission of the Prescribed Authority as is required under Section 6 of the U. P. (Regulation of Build ing Operations) Act, 1958. The petitioner was called upon to show cause on 29-3-75 at the Collectorate Rae Bareli in the office of the Prescribed Authority as to why an order for demolition of the aforesaid construction be not made. A further direction was issued to stop the constructions. His attention was also drawn that he is liable to punishment under Section 9 (1) of the said Act with a fine which may extend to Rs. 10,000 and in the case of continuing of fence, with a further fine which may extend to Rs. 500/- for every day during which such offence continues after conviction for the first commission of the offence.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an objection against the said notice in which he alleged that the map of the site- plan was sanc tioned by the Municipal Board Rae Bareli on 23-6-72 and a permission was given to raise the constructions of the proposed building in accordance with the sanctioned plan. He submitted that he has completed the frontage of the building by 15th June, 1973 and no fresh permission under law was required to be obtained from the Prescribed Authority. It was averred that the construction in question was com pleted much before the enforcement of the said Act and as such the objector's building does not come within the ambit of the Act and the. notice in question and the proceedings were thus vitiated.

(3.) THERE is nothing on the record to indicate as to whether the Municipal Board ever extended the said period, meaning thereby that if the proposed work has not commenced within a period of one year a person has no right to make any construction unless he applied for a fresh sanction and was granted the same under the same plan. The petitioner in reply to the notice had asserted that he had com pleted the construction of the frontage of the house by 15th June, 1973 i. e. within a period of one year and. hence the notice under Section 10 was bad for the reason that the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 came into force in Rae Bareli on 30th October, 1976. In that regard the petitioner has also adduced evidence before the Prescribed Authority. Some of the witnesses stated that con struction work was completed by the end of April, 1973 and thereafter no construc tion was made.