SURAJ BANSI Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein, felt aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order passed under Section 12 of the H.P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1968, in short the Act -, by the Collector, Sub Division Kalpa at Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur (H.P.) in Case No. SDK -1/2002 decided on 17.12.2003, whereby the petitioner was ordered to restore the building to its original position by removing the extension, between RD -5/68240 and RD5/712 of the building situated in Khasra No. 687 within three months of the order, failing which the order aforesaid shall be complied with through use of means as it would be thought proper under the said section by the Collector and costs of which would be recovered from the petitioner.

(2.) SHRI Shrawan Dogra, learned Counsel for the petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order on the ground that the complaint, filed by the Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. before the Collector under the aforesaid Act, alleging therein that carrying of the construction work by the petitioner, was wrong, illegal and contrary to law. The house in question is stated to be in existence on the spot over Khasra No. 786 with effect from the year 1965 whereas the Act received the assent of the Governor on the 13th June, 1969, which was published in the Rajpatra on 3rd September, 1969 and it is pointed out that the revenue record placed on record substantiate this fact. Therefore, Section 5 of the said Act was misapplied by the Collector, as the act of the petitioner was saved under proviso of (a) of said Section which fact was conveniently ignored. Thus in the instant case, there was an error of jurisdiction, exercised by the Collector and this Court is competent to pass appropriate order in exercise of the powers vested in it under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record.