JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J.
1. The present writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 10 of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 by which the orders passed for demolition of the constructions of the petitioner have been challenged.
2. The petitioner vide a registered agreement dated 15.4.1975 had purchased plot No. 146/1 having an area of 3 biswas and 10 dhurs. After the aforesaid purchase the petitioner moved an application under Section 180 of the U.P. Municipalities Act for sanction of the plan for construction. This sanction was granted by the Municipal Board vide its order dated 25.2.1982. It is submitted that the constructions started in February/March, 1982. One Kapildeo Gupta moved an application under Section 133, CrPC in respect of the construction on 20.1.1983 and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate vide its order dated 25.1.1983 directed for registering a case and issued notices to the petitioner. During the proceedings, the Naib-Tehsildar submitted its report dated 11.4.1983, which report was in favour of the petitioner and thus the proceedings were dropped vide order dated 21.3.1984. In the meanwhile U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force in district Basti on 14.10.1983. Again one Ram Chandra father of the respondent No. 5 filed a suit No. 67 of 1985 for injunction and demolition of the disputed constructions. After the petitioner filed his reply, the trial Court vide its order dated 2.4.1985 refused the interim injunction. An appeal against the aforesaid order was also dismissed on 16th May, 1985. The suit itself was dismissed in 1987. Thereafter, the respondent No. 5 son of the plaintiff of suit No. 67 of 1975 made an application dated 7.5.1985 before the Prescribed Authority claiming that the petitioner was constructing his house in a regulated area without sanction of map. On issuance of show cause notice under Section 10 of the Act dated 30.5.1985, the petitioner filed a detailed objection against the said notice. The Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 30.7.1986 held that the petitioner did not possess sanctioned map and, therefore, the constructions going on where illegal. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Controlling Authority which vide its order dated 29.8.1986 after coming to the conclusion that there was sanctioned map remanded the matter back to the Prescribed Authority. Against the aforesaid, the respondent No. 5 filed a revision under Section 15-A of the Act, which was allowed vide order dated 24.1.1987 and the case was remanded before the Controlling Authority. After remand the Controlling Authority again deliberated upon the matter and came to the conclusion as earlier and again remanded the matter vide order dated 16.6.1987 before the Prescribed Authority. Yet again the respondent No. 5 filed revision against the order dated 16th June, 1987 and again the Government vide its order dated 21st August, 1987 remanded the matter to the Controlling Authority. On second remand the Controlling Authority vide his order dated 15th September, 1988 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 30.7.1986. It held that the order of the Government was clear that the sanctioned map of the petitioner had expired on 25.8.1983 and further that there is no provision in the Municipalities Act that if the construction was stopped by a stay order, the duration of validity of the map would automatically stand extended. The petitioner thus filed a revision before the State Government which has been dismissed by an order dated 3rd December, 1988. It are these orders dated 30.7.1986, 15.9.1988 and 3.12.1988 which are under challenge before this Court.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged firstly that in pursuance of the sanctioned map the petitioner had started construction which was stopped by different authorities, therefore, the vlaidity of the map had not expired. Secondly, he submits that once the map had been sanctioned and construction started, there was no necessity for the petitioner to apply again on the enforcement of the Act in district Basti.
4. In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner, it would be necessary to quote Sections 180 and 181 of the U.P. Municipalities Act:
"180. Sanction of work by board-(1) Subject to the provisions of any bye-law the board may either refuse to sanction any work of which notice has been given under Section 178 or may sanction it absolutely or subject to-
(a) any written direction that the board deems fit to issue in respect of all or any of the matters mentioned in sub-head (h) of heading A of Section 1298, or
(b) a written direction requiring the setback of the building or part of a building to the regular line of the street prescribed under Section 222, or, in default of any regular line prescribed under that section, to the line of frontage of any neighbouring buildings."
"181. Duration of sanction.-(1) A sanction given or deemed to have been given by a board under Section 180 shall be available for one year or for such lesser period as may be prescribed by bye-law unless it is extended by the Board for a further period up to one year.
(2) After the expiry of the said period the proposed work may not be commenced except in pursuance of a fresh sanction applied for and granted under the same section."
5. A bare perusal of Section 181, Sub-clause (2) shows that the validity of one year from the date of sanction of the map relates only to the commencement of the constructions and not its completion. It is undisputed that the map was sanctioned on 25th February, 1982. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate in his order dated 25th January, 1983 has held on the basis of the report filed before him that the petitioner was constructing the house on the disputed plot. This fact is evident from a perusal of the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 25th January, 1983 which is annexed as Annexure-RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit. Further, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had got the disputed spot examined by the Naib Tahsildar who in Paragraph 3 of his report dated 11.4.1983 has confirmed that the construction on the spot had started prior to 25th January, 1983. These documents have neither been controverted nor their authenticity has been questioned by respondents. Thus, it is evident, that on the basis of sanction of map dated 25.2.1982, constructions had already started on the spot prior to 25.1.1983, i.e. before the period of one year had expired. I am of the opinion, that in view of Sub-clause (2) of Section 181 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, the petitioner had started construction on the basis of a sanctioned map and his construction was saved by the aforesaid clause of Sub-section (2) of Section 181. There is no provision under the Act by which any construction which had started on the strength of sanctioned map under the Municipalities Act, fresh sanction was necessary on the enforcement of the Act. It is evident from the perusal of the three impugned orders that they are based on the premise that the construction on the strength of sanctioned map under the U.P. Municipalities Act ought to have been completed within a period of one year or in any case prior to the enforcement of the Act. This approach is totally perverse. The further finding of the authors of the three impugned orders is that there is no provision that in case the on going constructions are stopped by any authority in purported exercise of powers, the duration of stay for which the construction was stopped, would be immaterial for computing the period of one year as provided under Sub-clause (2) of Section 181 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. This finding is also perverse. It is a matter of common sense that if an act was initiated within the specified period, the stoppage time in view of intervention through stay orders would have to be excluded. In that view of the matter, the three impugned orders are totally perverse and it appears have been passed with malafide intention to cause harassment and loss to the petitioner.
6. As noted above, while detailing the facts, first the father of respondent No. 5 and now the respondent No. 5 has been able to stall the construction activity. The petitioner, and rightly so, contends that he has suffered a huge monetary loss by the unnecessary intervention of the father of respondent No. 5 and then the respondent No. 5. First the father of respondent No. 5 filed a suit and failed to get any interim injunction, therefore, gets his suit dismissed. Then again starts proceedings under the Act. The Counsel for the respondent No. 5 has been unable to show any provision under the Act which entitles him to make any such application for stopping the construction. He appears to be a resourceful man. Twice the Chief Controller taking a reasonable view had remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority but on both occasions, the respondent No. 5 was able to get orders from the State Government in revision. The respondent No. 5 has been unable to show as to how and in what manner the constructions were visiting him with any consequence. The respondent No. 5 also does not appear to be a public spirit man who puts his mite for a public cause. In my opinion, the respondent No. 5 by his actions has definitely caused much harm to the petitioner both monetarily and in terms of harassment.
7. In view of the discussions above, the petitioner is entitled to costs of this petition, which I assess on the basis of institution of proceedings by the respondent No. 5, the time lapsed and increase in the costs of construction to a sum of Rs. 20,000/-
8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned orders dated 30.7.1986, 15.9.1988 and 3.12.1988 are hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to receive Rs. 20,000/- as costs from respondent No. 5. The said costs, if not paid within a period of one month from today, the same shall be recovered by the Collector, Basti as arrears of land revenue and after recovery the same should be paid to the petitioner.