Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Sri Munish Ranjan Tiwari appears for the respondents.
By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notice-cum-direction dated 4-1-2010 (Annexure No.8 to the writ petition). By an amendment application the petitioner has now prayed for quashing of the order dated 13-11-2009 and notice- cum-direction dated 3-12-2008 and 9-2-2009 (Annexure No. 4 and 5 to the writ petition). The petitioner claims to have purchased, by registered sale deed dated 18-9-2008 a portion of Bungalow no. 202, Pt. Tiwari Quarters Westend Road, Meerut Cantt. A show cause notice was issued by the Cantonment Board dated 29-11- 2008 under section 247 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 to the petitioner alleging that unauthorised construction is reported to have been carried out in bungalow No. 202, Pt. Tiwari Quarters Westend Road, Meerut Cantt. without prior sanction of the Cantonment Board. The details of unauthorised construction mentioned in the show cause notice is as follows :-
Ground Floor
1. Room measuring 16' - 3" x 12' x -0" is being constructed in the open compound of Bungalow No. 202/pt Tiwari Quarters Westend Road, Meerut Cantt.
2. Gallery 5'-0" wide is being constructed towards east of item no. 1.
3. Room measuring 10'-0" x 11'-11" is being constructed towards north of item no.2.
4. Bath 9' - 3" x 6'-6" is being constructed towards west of item. no.1.
5. Store 9'-3" x 6' -3" is being constructed towards west of item no.1.
6. Room 17' - 9" x 11' - 10" is being constructed towards west of item no. 3.
7. Verandah 19'-6"x12'-6" is being constructed towards north of item no. 3, 6.
8. Stair case 3'-9" wide is being constructed towards east of item no.7.
The petitioner submitted his reply on 1-1-2009 stating therein that the constructions are not existing and no unauthorised constructions were made. General allegations were made in the reply. Again a notice was given on 3-12-2008 giving details of unauthorised construction. Reply of the petitioner includes reply to both the notices. The petitioner filed an appeal before the competent authority being Appeal No. 7 and 17 of 2009. Said appeals have been decided by order dated 13-11-2009. The appellate authority passed order directing for demolition of unauthorised construction and imposed fine. Extract of the order is as follows :-
(a) Unauthorised constructions, mentioned in the subject notice of the Cantonment Board Meerut be demolished.
(b) Cantonment Board, Meerut to impose a fine of Rs.50,000/- on the appellant.
Subsequence to the said, notice has been given on 4-1-2010 for non compliance of the notice against which the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
Sri Govind Krishana, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has only carried out certain repairs of the walls and no construction has been made. He further contends that the construction which has been made and existing are old construction made by the earlier owner of the property.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From the reply submitted by the petitioner it is clear that that the repair is being admitted but the reply does not mention any details or existence of the repairs. The submission which has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that all the existing constructions are old constructions done by the earlier owner. The petitioner has filed copy of the sale deed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. Page 25 of the paper book (internal page no. 5) of sale deed mention about details of bunglow and the constructed area which refers to the portion of bungalow no. 202 area 418.06 sq. mtr having covered area 80 sq.yards (=66.89 sq. meters). The notice showing unauthorised construction given to the petitioner clearly indicates that the unauthorised constructions which are referred into the notice dated 3-12-2008 is more than about 100 sq. yards, and notice clearly states that above constructions are new constructions. In view of above the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that all constructions in the notice dated 3-12- 2008 is old construction, is not acceptable. The appellate authority has recorded a categorical finding that no evidence has been lead proving that the construction are old and existing for years. There was a detailed report dated 26-11-2008 about unauthorised construction which has been re lied by the authorities.
We have no reason to disbelieve the said report so far as unauthorised construction are concerned. We find no error in the order passed by the authority concerned.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.1.2010 skv