S. H A. RAZA, J. On 7-3-75 a notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 10 of the U. P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958, in which it was averred that the petitioner was carrying on erection of a building consisting of one storeyed house situated at Jail Road Rae Bareli without permission of the Prescribed Authority as is required under Section 6 of the U. P. (Regulation of Build ing Operations) Act, 1958. The petitioner was called upon to show cause on 29-3-75 at the Collectorate Rae Bareli in the office of the Prescribed Authority as to why an order for demolition of the aforesaid construction be not made. A further direction was issued to stop the constructions. His attention was also drawn that he is liable to punishment under Section 9 (1) of the said Act with a fine which may extend to Rs. 10,000 and in the case of continuing of fence, with a further fine which may extend to Rs. 500/- for every day during which such offence continues after conviction for the first commission of the offence. 2. The petitioner filed an objection against the said notice in which he alleged that the map of the site- plan was sanc tioned by the Municipal Board Rae Bareli on 23-6-72 and a permission was given to raise the constructions of the proposed building in accordance with the sanctioned plan. He submitted that he has completed the frontage of the building by 15th June, 1973 and no fresh permission under law was required to be obtained from the Prescribed Authority. It was averred that the construction in question was com pleted much before the enforcement of the said Act and as such the objectors building does not come within the ambit of the Act and the. notice in question and the proceedings were thus vitiated. 3. Before dealing with the question it is pertinent to mention here that the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 was enforced in District Rae Bareli on 30th October, 1976. Section 59 of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 deals with repeal etc. and savings provisions. notice in question and the proceedings were thus vitiated. 3. Before dealing with the question it is pertinent to mention here that the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 was enforced in District Rae Bareli on 30th October, 1976. Section 59 of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 deals with repeal etc. and savings provisions. Sub-section (c) provides that without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of Clauses (a) and (b), any bye-laws, directions or regulations under the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 or the Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Building Opera tions) Act, 1958 or the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, as the case may be, and in force on the date immediately before the date of commen cement of this Act, shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, continue in force, until altered, repealed or amended by any competent authority under this Act. 4. There is no denial of the fact that the house plan of the petitioner was sanc tioned by the Municipal Board Rae Bareli in the month of June, 1972. But Section 181 of the Act provides that a sanction given or deemed to have been given by the Board under Section 180 shall be available for one year or for such lesser period as may be prescribed by bye-law unless it is extended by the Board for a further period upto one year. After the expiry of the said period the proposed work may not be com menced except in pursuance of a fresh sanction applied for and granted under the same section. 5. There is nothing on the record to indicate as to whether the Municipal Board ever extended the said period, meaning thereby that if the proposed work has not commenced within a period of one year a person has no right to make any construction unless he applied for a fresh sanction and was granted the same under the same plan. The petitioner in reply to the notice had asserted that he had com pleted the construction of the frontage of the house by 15th June, 1973 i. e. within a period of one year and. hence the notice under Section 10 was bad for the reason that the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 came into force in Rae Bareli on 30th October, 1976. hence the notice under Section 10 was bad for the reason that the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 came into force in Rae Bareli on 30th October, 1976. In that regard the petitioner has also adduced evidence before the Prescribed Authority. Some of the witnesses stated that con struction work was completed by the end of April, 1973 and thereafter no construc tion was made. 6. The contention of the petitioner was not accepted by the Prescribed Authority who declared that the house was constructed illegally, hence the petitioner should demolish the same within 30 days, failing which that would be demolished at the costs of the petitioner, which will be realised as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner thereafter invoked the jurisdic tion of the Commissioner by filing an ap peal under Section 58 of the U. P. (Regula tion of Building Operations) Act 1958, against the order of the Prescribed Authority. After hearing the parties learned Commissioner passed an order that after realising the compounding fee from the petitioner the matter be com pounded. Thereafter a direction was is sued to the petitioner to deposit Rs. 28013 as compounding fee. Instead of complying with the said order the petitioner filed a revision before the State Government, which was dismissed. Thereafter he knocked the door of this Court by filing the present writ petition. 7. The State Government was of the view that as the petitioner has not filed any revision against the order of the learned Commissioner, the order passed by the learned Commissioner has become final. The appeal was preferred against the order of the Vice-Chairman of Rae Bareli Development Authority under Section 15 (a) of the U. P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958. The State Govern ment has been empowered to hear only those matters which have been decided by the Controlling Authority. The order which was assailed before the State Government was passed by the Vice-Chairman, hence no revision was main tainable to the State Government. Since the impugned order was not passed by the Controlling Authority, hence no revision would lie against the said order. 8. Sri Nirmal Tewari, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the case of one Mr. Shambhoo Dayal Choudhary. In that case notice was issued to Sri Choudhary on 27- 5-75. Since the impugned order was not passed by the Controlling Authority, hence no revision would lie against the said order. 8. Sri Nirmal Tewari, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the case of one Mr. Shambhoo Dayal Choudhary. In that case notice was issued to Sri Choudhary on 27- 5-75. In his defence he has produced documentary as well as oral evidence to prove that the construction work was com pleted prior to December, 1972. Consider ing that aspect of the matter the Secretary Rae Bareli Development Authority withdrew the notice. In the present case, from the side of the Rae Bareli Develop ment Authority it was contended that the construction was started by the petitioner in 1975 when the notice was issued, while the case of the petitioner was that construction work was completed prior to December, 1973. 9. This Court in exercise of its juris diction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot adjudicate upon the dis puted question of fact. The question as to when the petitioner commenced the con struction and when completed the same, cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. There are two contrary versions. Such a contentious issue can only be decided by a competent civil Court. Under Section 181 of the U. P. Municipalities Act the sanction given by the Board shall be available for one year unless extended by the Board, failing which the construction work cannot be commenced except in pursuance of the fresh sanction applied for and granted under the same sanction by the Municipal Board. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had obtained any fresh sanction from the Municipal Board after expiry of one year of the sanction. 10. The learned Commissioner taking a lenient view in the matter ordered the matter be compounded. His order was given effect to by the Vice-Chairman. No revision was filed against the order of the Chairman under the provisions of U. P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958. A revision was filed against the order of the Vice-Chairman who is not the con trolling authority, hence the revision was not maintainable and was rightly dis missed by the State Government. 11. No revision was filed against the order of the Chairman under the provisions of U. P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958. A revision was filed against the order of the Vice-Chairman who is not the con trolling authority, hence the revision was not maintainable and was rightly dis missed by the State Government. 11. I am of the view that the petitioner should have complied with the order of the Commissioner and the Vice-Chairman by depositing the compounding fee as directed, but he allowed the litigation to continue without any rhyme or reason. I find no force in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. However, it is provided that in case the petitioner deposits the compounding fee within a period of ten weeks with the Rae Bareli Development Authority as directed by the Commissioner and the Vice- Chairman of the Rae Bareli Development Authority, the house of the petitioner shall not be demolished. In case of default it will be open for the respondents to proceed with in accordance with law. Petition dismissed. .