AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Merathia, J.—This writ petition has been filed for quashing an order dated 28.4.2010 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Regional Development Authority, Ranchi in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 02 of 2009 (Annexure 4) and also order dated 25.4.2009 passed by learned Vice-Chairman, Ranchi Regional Development Authority, Ranchi in U. C. Case No. 44 of 2008 (Annexure 2).
Mr. A. K. Sahni, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the said order has been passed at the behest of the landlord-Respondent No. 2 who wants to evict the Petitioner from the shop in question. He further submitted that in any event, post facto sanction could have been granted for continuing with the said shop as it was constructed prior to 1974.
On the other hand Mr. A. K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the R.R.D.A. supported the impugned orders and submitted that the construction in question is admittedly an asbestos roof shop in front set back area of the building on the main door. He further submitted that after hearing the parties and considering their respective cases and the documents produced by them, a finding of fact has been recorded that Petitioner could not prove that the construction in question was made prior to 1974, and therefore, there in no question of grant of post facto sanction. Moreover, such sanction is granted to the land owner and not the tenant. He orally submitted that such construction is causing obstruction in the free flow of the traffic which can be seen by anybody.
Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 adopting the submissions of Mr. Singh further submitted that initially the Petitioner was claiming himself to be the landlord, but the authorities after considering the documents filed before the rent controller rightly held that he is a tenant in the shop in question. He further submitted that the impugned orders are applicable not only to the Petitioner, but also to Respondent No. 2.
After hearing the parties and going through the records carefully, it is clear that the asbestos roof shop in question has been constructed on the front set back of the building of the Respondent No. 2 facing the main road. Further it is clear from the impugned orders that Petitioner could not prove that the construction was made before 1974 and therefore, the contention with regard to grant of post facto sanction was rightly rejected. It is also clear that Petitioner is a tenant under Respondent No. 2. It also appears that the construction in question was made by Respondent No. 2, though it is submitted by Mr. Rajiv Ranjan that at the time it was made, it was not illegal.
Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no grounds are made out for interfering with the impugned orders. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are directed to remove the encroachment within two weeks from today failing which Respondent No. 1 will be entitled to get it removed and recover the cost thereof from the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 equally.
However, for balancing the equities, it is further ordered that after removal of encroachment, Petitioner may approach Respondent No. 2 who in turn, will hand over a cheque of Rs. 20,000/-to him.
With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.