JUDGMENT S. Saghir Ahmad, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Opposite party No. 3 applied for permission of the Municipal Board to construct a building on the land in question. This application was filed under Sections 178 and 179 of the U.P. Municipalities Act which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by its order dated 30-11-83. The plan was sanctioned. The Petitioner, who had filed objection before the Municipal Board, filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur on 14-5-84 by his judgment contained in Annexure-6. The Petitioner has now filed this writ petition. 2. It has been stated in the writ petition that in 1982 opposite party No. 3 had filed a building plan before the Nagar Palika, Sultanpur for sanction to make construction over the land in question. This plan was submitted in the name of Syed Mehdi Irshad, son of the opposite party No. 3 from his second wife. The Petitioner, who is the son from the first wife of opposite party No. 3 had filed objections against the said plan. Objections were also filed by Srimati Nirmala, Basheer Ahmad and Abdul Majid. The matter was considered by the Prescribed Authority who rejected the plan as the question of title was involved in the matter. An appeal was thereafter filed by Syed Mehdi Irshad before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur, who dismissed the appeal with the finding that Syed Mehdi Irshad had no right to raise construction over the land which belonged to some other persons. It was also held by the Chief Judicial Magistrate that the U.P. Roadside Land Control Act was applicable to the site in question and consequently the plan could not be sanctioned without the permission of the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, as required by Section 5 of the U.P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1945. 3. Inspite of the above orders of the Prescribed Authority and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, opposite party No. 3 submitted a fresh building plan in his own name. He did not again obtain a "no objection certificate" from the public Works Department and no permission was obtained by him from the District Magistrate as required by Section 5 of the U.P. Roadside Land Control Act. The Prescribed Authority, however, by order dated 30-11-83 sanctioned the building plan and rejected the objection of the Petitioner. He did not again obtain a "no objection certificate" from the public Works Department and no permission was obtained by him from the District Magistrate as required by Section 5 of the U.P. Roadside Land Control Act. The Prescribed Authority, however, by order dated 30-11-83 sanctioned the building plan and rejected the objection of the Petitioner. The appeal, which was thereafter filed against that order, was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 14-5-84. 4. The petition has been opposed by the opposite party No. 3 who has filed a counter-affidavit, The Petitioner has filed a rejoinder-affidavit and has also filed an additional affidavit. 5. It is not disputed that Alahabad-Faizabad Road running and lying within the Municipal Area of Sultanpur has since been notified u/s 3 of the U.P. Roadside Land Control Act and it is now a controlled area within the meaning of that Act. The notification to this effect has already been published in the U.P. Government Gazette dated 11-4-1961. 6. Section 5 of the U.P. Roadside Land Control Act provides as under: Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force no person shall erect or re-erect any building, or make or extend any excavation, or lay out any means of access to a road In a controlled area except with the previous permission of the Collector in writing. 7. It is thus obvious that the building can be constructed in a controlled area only with the previous permission of the Collector. This section has an over-riding effect and consequently a building plan under the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act cannot be sanctioned unless there was the required permission given by the Collector in writing u/s 5 of the U.P. Roadside Land Control Act. 8. Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 3 has, however, referred to me to the provisions of Section 16 of the Act and has contended on that basis that the Act was not applicable to the land in question. Relevant portion of Section 16 is quoted below: 16. 8. Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 3 has, however, referred to me to the provisions of Section 16 of the Act and has contended on that basis that the Act was not applicable to the land in question. Relevant portion of Section 16 is quoted below: 16. Savings-Nothing in this Act shall apply to (a) I he erection or re-erection of buildings upon land included in the inhabited site of any village as entered and demarcated in the revenue records or upon sides in a municipal, notified or town area that are already built upon the date of the issue of the notification under Sub-section (2) of this Act. Section 16(a) is in two parts: (i) the Act will not apply to the erection or re-erection of building upon the land included in the inhabited site of any village as entered and demarcated in the revenue records. (ii) the Act would also not apply to sites in a municipal, notified or town area that are already built upon the date of the issue of the notification under Sub-section (2) of the Act. 9. If the site on which the building was proposed to be constructed was an inhabited site of a village as entered and demarcated in the revenue records, the provisions of the Act would not apply. So also if the site was situate h a municipal area, which was already a built up site on the date of issue of the notification u/s 3, the Act would not apply to such site. 10. In the instant case, the authorities concerned have not considered the provisions of Section 5 as also the provisions of Section 16 of the Act. Since in the previous proceedings it had already been held in respect of the land in question by the Chief Judicial Magistrate that the permission of the District Magistrate was necessary to be obtained first, as required by the Act, the authorities should have adverted their mind to this aspect of the matter to the present proceedings as well before sanctioning the building plan. Since this has not been done, the order impugned in the writ petition cannot be sustained. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Since this has not been done, the order impugned in the writ petition cannot be sustained. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The orders dated 30-11-83 passed by the Prabhari Adhikari, Nagar Palika, Sultanpur (opposite party No. 2) and the order dated 14-5-84 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur (opposite party No. 1) are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the Prabhari Adhikari to reconsider the question of sanction of plan in the light of the provisions of the U.P. Roadside Land Control Act and to decide the application of the opposite party No. 3 afresh according to law keeping in view the observations made above. There will be no order as to costs.