M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for appropriate order restraining the respondent-RRDA from demolishing the residential building standing on RS Plot No. 660 under Khata No. 120 of village Kathargonda, District Ranchi.

2. The petitioners case is that the land comprised within RS Plot No. 660 is the ancestral property of the petitioner and after partition it was allotted in the share of the petitioner. In 1989 the petitioner submitted a plan alongwith requisite fee in the office of the respondents for obtaining sanction for construction of building, which was registered as B.S. case No. 282/89. It is stated that in spite of fulfilling all the conditions for sanction of plan, the respondents did not pass any order and accordingly the petitioner gave notice as required under the law and constructed a house according to the plan. In 1996 a general notice was published in the newspaper dated 29.5.96 for demolition of those houses which were constructed without obtaining legal sanction. The petitioners case is that on enquiry he came to know that an exparte order was passed on 23.9.95 against the petitioner in UC Case No. 104/89. The petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No. 33/96 against the aforesaid order and the appeal is pending before the Tribunal Petitioners further case is that another B.S. Case No. 567/96 was initiated against him and he submitted all the relevant papers but no order has been passed.

3. The respondents case in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner had submitted a building plan, vide B.C. Case No. 282/89 on 17.4.89 for construction of house in RS Plot No. 660. The said building plan was examined but in the meantime the petitioner started construction of proposed house in the said plot without approval of the authority and as such. UC Case No. 104/89 was initiated against the petitioner. The respondents thereafter examined the building plan and the petitioner was informed, vide letter dated 3.8.89, to rectify the map as there were some errors because the plan was not as per the provisions of Building Bye-laws. It is stated that the petitioner neither replied the above said letter nor corrected the map and as such, the application was rejected vide letter No. 1300 dated 22.6.1991. It is further stated that in U.C. Case No. 104/89 it was reported that the construction of the house was completed upto roof level and the plot comes under "public open space" as per the Master Plan. As such, demolition order under Section 54(1) was passed by the Court of Vice Chairman on 29.4.91. The petitioner alongwith other legal heirs again submitted a building plan application, vide B.C. Case No. 567/96 on 12.6.96 by suppressing the fact that he has already constructed a building on the same plot. The said application was rejected, vide B.C. Case No. 567/96 on 19.6.96. The case of the respondents, therefore, is that the construction of building by the petitioner is illegal and, therefore, the respondents rightly decided to demolish all such unauthorised constructions.

4. In reply to the counter affidavit, the petitioner has denied and disputed the allegations made by the respondent that the land in question comes within the "public open space". It is stated that in B.C. Case No. 567/96 the authorities of the respondent-RRDA, after due inspection, submitted a report holding that the plot in question is situated in residential space. The petitioner further stated that it was only on 3.6.96 the petitioner was served with a notice informing him that the building plan submitted in the year. 1989 was rejected.

5. Before appreciating the rival cases of the parties I would first like to refer the relevant provisions of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act. 1981 (Bihar Act 40 of 1982). Chapter 6 deals with the development of land and building. Section 30 provides that no person shall institute or change the house on any land or carry out development on any land without obtaining permission in wr