JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - This Petition is directed against the order dated 29.6.1985 passed by the Competent Authority under the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad directing removal of certain constructions stated to have been unauthorisedly made by the Petitioner plot No. 528/3. 2. The order is challenged on two grounds : first, that the impugned order was passed without any notice to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 82 (1) of the aforesaid Act; second, that the order has been made without any application of mind. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the Petition is well as the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, we find no merit in either of these contentions. So far as the first ground is concerned, we find that there is a categorical and uncontroverted assertion in the counter affidavit that before passing the impugned order a notice fixing 17.12.1984 for showing cause why the unauthorised constructions made by the Petitioner over the disputed land should not be removed was actually served on the Petitioner, but he did not file any objection. When the Petitioner failed to show cause, the Competent Authority passed the order dated 9.4.1985 (A true copy where of is Annexure C.A.3) directing the removal of the constructions within seven days of the date of service of the order. This order was also served on the Petitioner through the process server of the Competent Authority. The Petitioner had declined to account the service of the order on 17.4.1985. There upon it was sent to the petitioner by registered Post which too was returned with an endorsement "not met, out of Station." The Competent Authority thereafter again sent the order through a special messenger to the Petitioner on 29.6.85 and again the Petitioner refused to accept it. The refusal was endorsed by two witnesses Sundar Singh and Narendra, where upon the order was posted on the disputed construction itself on 29.6.85 in die presence of those witnesses. 3. These facts have remained uncontroverted. Upon these facts it is impossible to hold that the Petitioner was not afforded any opportunity nor served with the notice contemplated under Section 82 (1) of the Act. 4. The second ground is equally devoid of any substance. 3. These facts have remained uncontroverted. Upon these facts it is impossible to hold that the Petitioner was not afforded any opportunity nor served with the notice contemplated under Section 82 (1) of the Act. 4. The second ground is equally devoid of any substance. The order dated 9.4.1986 passed under Section 82/83 clearly states that despite opportunity of being heard on 17.12.1984 having been given to the petitioner why the disputed constructions be not demolished, the petitioner had failed to show cause or fill any objection. Consequently, Seven days' notice was given to him to remove the constructions failing which the same would be removed at the petitioner's cost. 5. Where a person on whom a show cause notice is served does not come forward and file any objection one cannot expect the order to contain any elaborate discussion, at any rale, more than that disclosed by the order dated 9.4.1986. The contention that the impugned order was passed without any application of mind has thus no substance. 6. We also reject the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner did file an objection on 9.3.1985 in pursuance of the show cause notice and the Competent Authority was wrong in assuming that no such objection was filed. Annexure A - 2 to the petition in which the learned counsel placed reliance is a representation which is addressed to the Housing Commissioner, Lucknow. The representation was supported with a Tetter of recommendation of the local M.I.A.S. This representation being neither addressed to not filed before the Competent Authority could not by a by stretch of imagination be regarded as an objection filed under Section 82. The Competent Authority was hence into wrong in observing in his order dated 9.4.1985 that the petitioner had not filed any objection. 7. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners' constructions had been raised prior to die issue of the impugned notifications under Sections 28 and 32 of the aforesaid Act and consequently, the same could not be characterised as unauthorised. There in no substance in this submission either. The impugned notifications under Sections 28 and 32 were issued respectively in 1970 and 1976. Delivery of possession over the land acquired took place on 23.12.83. A copy of the memorandum of delivery of possession has been annexed to the counter affidavit as C.A. 2. In this document against the disputed plot No. 5. The impugned notifications under Sections 28 and 32 were issued respectively in 1970 and 1976. Delivery of possession over the land acquired took place on 23.12.83. A copy of the memorandum of delivery of possession has been annexed to the counter affidavit as C.A. 2. In this document against the disputed plot No. 5. 28, there is no mention whatever of any building or constructions. It mentions the existence on only a few trees. This document gives a complete lie to the petitioner's claim that the disputed constructions were already in existence even prior to the passing of the impugned notifications. There is, therefore, no reason why we should not accept the averment made in the counter affidavit supported as it by documents that the disputed constructions were made unauthorisedly subsequent to formal delivery of possession. Thus the very substratum on which the impugned orders were challenged in the petitioner's representation disappears. No other point support of the petition. 8. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The interim orders are here by discharged.