JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

1. The case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo No. 763 dated 23.07.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2 in U.C. Case No. 171/2021 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) whereby the order of demolition of the petitioner’s house has been passed on the ground that he has not shown the sanctioned map of building by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation and also without considering the facts that the same has been constructed over his Raiyati land and the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, after proper verification of construction of the building, has given Holding No. 0450002774000A5.

3. Ms. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner’s son, namely, Pankaj Kumar Singh has constructed a house over his Raiyati land appertaining to Khata No. 65, Plot No. 688, Khesra No. 8, measuring an area of 1.5 Decimals, situated at New Bandhu Nagar, Birsa Chowk, Hinoo, Ranchi. He has also paid the Holding Tax to the respondent-RMC till March, 2022. He has also been provided electricity connection and has been regularly paying the electricity bill for the said house. He has also been allotted P.D.S. license to run a fair price shop from the said house, which is valid till March, 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 23.07.2021, submits that the petitioner was never informed about initiation of any un-authorized construction case against him, much less providing opportunity of hearing to him in order to satisfy the respondent No. 2 that he has not made any un-authorized construction over the said land. However, the respondent No. 2 vide the impugned order dated 23.07.2021, has directed demolition of the said house within 15 days from the date of the said order, failing which the same would be demolished by use of force imposing cost of demolition upon the petitioner. On perusal of the impugned order dated 23.07.2021, it would be evident that the petitioner was not heard by the respondent No. 2 and the same was passed ex-parte. It is further submitted that similar matter has already been decided by this Court vide order dated 09.08.2021 passed in W.P. (C) No. 2883/2021 quashing the order dated 23.07.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2 in respective un-authorised construction cases instituted against the petitioners of the said case and remanding the matter to the respondent No. 2 to pass fresh reasoned orders in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of hearing to them. Hence, the present case may also be disposed of in terms with the order dated 09.08.2021 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2883/2021.

4. Mr. L.C.N. Shahedeo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-RMC, submits that the impugned order dated 23.07.2021 would itself indicate that during spot verification made by the inspection team of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi on 05.04.2021, the petitioner had not shown the approved building plan subsequent to which the said un-authorized construction case was registered and notice was issued to him on 15.06.2021 calling upon him to put forth his defence. Moreover, final notice was also published in the local daily newspapers on 21.07.2021 intimating him to submit reply in the said un-authorized construction case on 22.07.2021. Since the petitioner did not appear and produce the sanctioned map of the building in question in the said un-authorized construction case despite publishing final notice addressed to him, the respondent No. 2 had no option, but to pass the impugned order dated 23.07.2021 exercising powers under Sections 436 and 437 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 has not provided him an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order dated 23.07.2021 directing him