RAJENDRA ROY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the Estate Officer of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority (RRDA). Prom the contents of this affidavit, it is apparent that he construction in question, in the view of RRDA is neither authorised nor in conformity with the provision of law. Actually the RRDA has taken note of the alleged viola - tion in U.C. Case No. 142 of 2001 and has fixed 21st August, 2001 as the date for adjudication. The affidavit also goes to suggest that the RRDA has passed the order stopping the construction.

(2.) THE learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3 has stated before us that he has been informed by the Executive Engineer concerned that construction has since been stopped.

(3.) MR . Tapan Sen, learned counsel for the RRDA has submitted that in this case and several other cases, the RRDA on detection of unauthorised constructions requests the District Administration and the District Police to render assistance to the RRDA in initiating actions against the defaulters, but more often than not such help is not provided to the RRDA.