Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

In Re: C.M. Delay Condonation Application No.07 of 2021

1. Cause shown is sufficient.

2. Delay in filing the substitution application is condoned.

3. Delay condonation application is allowed.

In Re: C.M. Substitution Application No.08 of 2021

4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Dube, learned counsel for the respondents.

5. It is contended that the sole petitioner, Shri Kishan Kapoor had died on 08.05.2019 leaving behind the legal heirs/representatives as mentioned in para 3 of the affidavit to the substitution application.

6. In view of the said fact, the substitution application stands allowed.

7. Let the name of petitioner-Shri Kishan Kapoor be struck off from the array of parties and the names of legal heirs/representatives as given in paragraph-3 of the affidavit to the substitution application be substituted in his place.

8. Office is directed to carry out necessary substitution in the array of parties within two days.

In Re: Writ Petition

9. Heard Sri Suresh Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ritvik Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Dube, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3.

10. This writ petition arises out of the notice dated 08.05.1995 and appellate order dated 22.03.2006 passed by the appellate authority, respondent no.2.

11. The petitioner, before this Court, is occupier of bungalow no.13, measuring 2.40 acres situated in Varanasi Cantt. Certain unauthorized constructions of size 3.90 x 2.47 Mts. was made. Notice under Section 256 of Cantonment Act 1924 (ii of 1924) read with Cantonment Board Resolution No.19 dated 16.05.2006 was issued on 18.05.2006.

12. Against the said notice, an appeal was preferred before the appellate authority, wherein the appellate authority found that the petitioner had failed to produce any document showing the existence of room prior to 29.09.1997 thus, the appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present petition.

13. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

14. From the perusal of material on record, it is clear that an inspection was made by the Cantonment Board and it was found that on the vacant land, a room was constructed by the petitioner of size 3.90 x 2.47 Mts. The finding recorded by the appellate authority clearly reflects that the petitioner had failed to produce any order issued under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 as well as any document to substantiate the claim that the construction was made prior to 29.09.1997.

15. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court finds that no case for interference in the order of the appellate authority is made out.

16. Writ petition fails and is, hereby, dismissed.