MAN MOHAN SHARMA Vs. RANCHI REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ application was filed on 2nd September, 1987 for quashing Annexure -10 which is an order dated 7th August, 1987 passed by the Vice -Chairman of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority') directing the petitioner under Section 54 of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1974 (Bihar Act 40 of 1982) to demolish the unauthorised constructions in the eastern and southern portion of Municipal Survey Plot No. 2060 corresponding to Municipal Holding No. 818, situated at Main Road, Ranchi. This Court issued notice to respondents 1 and 2 by order dated 8 -9 -1987 with a direction that the respondents shall be at liberty to file counter -affidavit, if any, by the date fixed, so that after hearing both the parties, this writ application could be finally disposed of on the next date itself. By an interim order the operation of the order as contained in Annexure -10 was stayed. In response to the notice dated 8 -9 -1987, the respondents have filed a counter -affidavit in opposition. The petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit thereafter. We have heard learned counsels for the petitioner and respondents at length, and the writ application is being disposed of finally after hearing the parties by this Court.

(2.) Petitioner -Man Mohan Sharma claims to be the owner of Municipal Survey Plot No. 2060 situate at Main Road, Ranchi, which he purchased alongwith one Sushil Kumar Sharma by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated 28 -4 -1982. The petitioner claims that he along with Sushil Kumar Sharma applied for grant of permission to construct a building over the said plot and the said plan was numbered as Case No. 448 of 1982 be fore the Ranchi Regional Development Authority. A building plan had been submitted for sanction by the Authority. The aforesaid building plan has been annexed as Annexure -4 to the writ application. It is not in dispute that the said plan was duly sanctioned by the Authority by sanction order dated 19 -7 -1982. The petitioner then claim that he submitted a revised plan before the Authority for its sanction, being case No. 841 of 1982. The revised plan was also sanctioned by the Authority on 10 -4 -1085. The aforesaid sanctioned plan has been annexed as Annexure -5 to the writ application. The petitioner then pleads that on 20th January, 1987 he submitted another plan for sanction by the Authority. He received no response from the Authority within the period of four months prescribed under Section 37 of the Act, He, therefore, gave a registered notice to the Authority on 22 -5 -1987 which is annexure -7 to the writ application. By the said notice the petitioner informed the Authority that he had received no order as regards the revised plan submitted by him, and that if no order was communicated to him within thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice, it shall be presumed that the plan had been sanctioned. Such a notice, according to the petitioner, was given pursuant to Section 37 of the Act. The case of the petitioner is that this notice was received by the authority on 24 -5 -1987, and deposit receipt of notice no order was communicated to him by the authority. Thus, in terms of Sub -section (5) of Section 37 of the Act the plan was deemed to have been sanctioned by the Authority.

(3.) The further case of the petitioner is that he was surprised to receive a notice calling him to show cause, and in response to such notice he had shown cause, but he was not heard and no opportunity was given to him to lead evidence. The averments in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of the writ application in this regard are rather cryptic and the facts relating to this notice have to be gathered from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ application before this court challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid show cause notice. The aforesaid writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 889 of 1987(R) was withdrawn by the petitioner on 13th July, 1987 to enable the petitioner to file show cause before the authority in response to the aforesaid show cause. The order of this Court permitting the petitioner to withdraw this writ application dated 13 -7 -1987 has been annexed as Annexure -9 to the writ application. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was neither heard nor was he given opportunity to lead evidence and suddenly a notice was issued for demolition of alleged unauthorised construction. This notice was issued on 7 -8 -1987 by the Vice -Chairman who had no authority to issue such an order under Section 54 of the Act. It is rather surprising to find an averment in paragraph 26 of the writ application wherein it has been stated that the petitioner's building had been constructed according to the plan duly sanctioned by the respondents vide Case No. 408 of 1982 and 841 of 1982 and as such the respondents are estopped from issuing order of demolition of any portion of the building. This averment in the writ application amounts to saying that the building had been constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plan and, therefore, there was no question of demolition of any portion thereof. Surprisingly, paragraph 26 of the writ application has not been verified in the affidavit filed in support of the writ application. It was, therefore, rightly contended on behalf of the respondent -Authority that the petitioner deliberately made such a statement in the writ application without taking the risk of supporting the same by an affidavit.