Harish Kumar, J. – Heard Mr. Salahuddin Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Prasoon Sinha, learned counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation.

2. The petitioner, by invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is seeking quashing of the order dated 12.01.2016 passed in Municipal Building Appeal No. 49 of 2014 by the Municipal Building Tribunal II, Patna (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), as also the order dated 15.07.2014 passed in Vigilance Case No. 56A of 2013 by the Patna Municipal Commissioner (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) under which direction was given to demolish the construction of the house/shop of the petitioner at her own cost.

3. The short facts, which led to filing of the present writ petition is that the late husband of the petitioner has purchased one old building/land measuring 510 sq. ft. vide sale deed dated 02.03.2007 (Annexure-1). Out of the aforesaid building/land, the portion admeasuring 152.65 sq. ft. was sold to one Shaukat Ali vide sale deed dated 30.03.2013 by the late husband of the petitioner and the petitioner along with his family has been coming in the peaceful possession of the remaining portion of the land. It is submitted that all of a sudden, the husband of the petitioner received a notice dated 21.09.2013 issued by the Patna Municipal Corporation in Vigilance Case No. 56A of 2013 directing him to file show cause. The aforesaid show cause contains that the report submitted by the Inspecting Team, has found that unauthorized construction was undertaken by the husband of the petitioner in violation of the provisions as contained under the Building Byelaws and the Municipal Act, 2007 and accordingly the husband of the petitioner was directed to stop the construction work till further order.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid notice was quite vague and no inspection report was attached with the same. The so called inspection of the building in question was done completely behind the back of the petitioner and her late husband. That apart, the Inspecting Team had failed to look into the old municipal record of the holding/building in question where the structure was already constructed even before 1995. It is the further case of the petitioner that the late husband of the petitioner had submitted all the relevant papers including registry paper before the Municipal Authority and nonetheless, the subject matter of the case is a small portion of the shop, thus the husband of the petitioner was answerable only to the remaining portion of the about 3 dhurs of the land. Moreover, it is not a case of any construction, rather after purchase of the land/building in question, the late husband had only renovated it and done some plaster work.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the documents relating to the mutation in the name of late husband of the petitioner in the assessment register of the Corporation, after purchase of the building/land in question and the rent receipts duly granted by the Corporation in his favour. During the pendency of the aforenoted Vigilance Case No. 56A/2013, the husband of the petitioner died on 01.04.2014 and thereafter the impugned order came to be passed on 15.07.2014 by the Patna Municipal Commissioner, obviously, against the dead person. The present petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2014 preferred Municipal Building Appeal No. 49 of 2014 before the Municipal Building Tribunal II. The aforesaid appeal also came to be rejected vide order dated 12.01.2016 by the learned Tribunal.

6. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order passed by the Municipal Commissioner and duly affirmed by the Municipal Building Tribunal II, has submitted that it has wrongly mentioned that the late husband of the petitioner made a new construction and violated the provisions of the Bihar Muni