SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ( 1 ) THE petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 19. 4. 2001 passed by the Deputy Director (Land Management) of the DDA in respect of the property bearing Municipal No. 1043/d-6, ward No. 8 in Khaera No. 1151/3 Min. , Village Mehrauli, new Delhi. ( 2 ) THE petitioner purchased the property in question in pursuance to the sale deed dated 13. 5. 1996 and claims that no notice was ever served on him but notices were addressed to one Shri V. P. Bhardwaj, owner/builder. This grievance is specially being made in view of the fact that it was known to the respondent authorities that the property in question was owned by the petitioner. Reference in this behalf is invited to a notice dated 8. 2. 2001 addressed to Shri Tarun tahilyani. It may be noted that as per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner the said Shri tarun Tahilyani is the director of the petitioner company. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has also made a grievance against the jurisdiction of the DDA to take action in respect of the land in question as it is stated that it is the municipal Corporation of Delhi which has jurisdiction in the area. It is thus stated that the Building bye-laws have no application to the land of the petitioner and the impugned notice sent under section 30 (1) of DDA Act, 1957 is Without any jurisdiction. ( 4 ) IT may be noted that the said order is an appealable order but the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this Court should consider this issue in view of the fact that the order is without Jurisdiction and in view thereof the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) IN the counter affidavit, it is stated that the property in question falls within the jurisdiction of the DDA and the area in question has been declared as a development area. A reference has been made to a letter dated 8. 2. 2001 Addressed by the SDM to MCD pointing out the unauthorised construction and stating that same is in violation of the orders passed by this court in CW No. 4771/1993. The second letter dated 17. 3. A reference has been made to a letter dated 8. 2. 2001 Addressed by the SDM to MCD pointing out the unauthorised construction and stating that same is in violation of the orders passed by this court in CW No. 4771/1993. The second letter dated 17. 3. 2001 is addressed to Commissioner, DDA stating that the earlier letter dated 8. 2. 2001 was returned back for necessary action stating that the area falls under the DDA. A notification published in the Delhi gazette on 26. 7. 1989 has also been filed along with the counter affidavit in respect of the land in question which is as under : "in exercise of the powers confered by sub-section (1) of the Section 12 of the Delhi development Act,1957 (51 of 1957) read with notification of the Government of India in the ministry of Health, Family Planning and Urban development No. 18011 (28)67/ud, dated the 14th february,1969, the Administrator of the Union territory of Delhi hereby declare the area described in the schedule given below to be "development Area" for the purposes of the said Act. " ( 6 ) I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. In terms of Section 12 of the DDA Act, 1957,"an area in Delhi can be declared a development area for the purposes of the act on a notification being issued in the official gazette by the Central Government. Once an area is declared a development area, permission has to be obtained in writing from the authority in accordance with the provisions of this Act before any construction is carried out. Admittedly no permission has been obtained by the petitioner. In fact the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that no such permission is required. ( 7 ) I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. The reading of the notification dated 26. 7. 1989 shows that the same has been issued on behalf of the Administrator of the Union territory of Delhi. This power is exercised in pursuance to the notification of the Government of india dated 14. 2. 1969 delegating the power to issue such notifications. I am thus unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no proper delegation of power as required under section 52 of the Act. This power is exercised in pursuance to the notification of the Government of india dated 14. 2. 1969 delegating the power to issue such notifications. I am thus unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no proper delegation of power as required under section 52 of the Act. ( 8 ) I am thus of the considered view that respondent dda would have Jurisdiction in respect of the land in question and prior permission under Section 12 of the act was required before carrying on any construction. ( 9 ) THE second aspect which would arise for consideration would be a consequence of the aforesaid order holding that the DDA has jurisdiction in the area. Admittedly construction has been carried out without any permission from DDA. In view of the fact that the petitioner was not issued any notice who is the owner of the property in question and notice was issued to the builder at site, I consider it appropriate that an opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to represent his case before the competent authority to seek regularisation of the construction in accordance with law. ( 10 ) I thus direct that the petitioner through the authorised representative shall appear before Director (Land and Management) DDA on 7th October, 2002 at 3. 00 p. M. It will be open to the petitioner to file all documents and application to seek regularisation of the construction. The petitioner will be given a personal hearing on the said date. The decision shall be taken on the application of the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of four weeks thereafter. In case the construction has to be regularised, the compoundable and non-compoundable deviations shall be communicated to the petitioner along with compounding fee. The compounding fee shall be paid by the petitioner within two weeks thereafter and the non-compoundable deviations shall be removed within a period of six weeks. In case the petitioner fails to do the needful, it is open to respondent DDA to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. ( 11 ) THE writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. ( 12 ) INTERIM orders dated 11. 6. 2001 read with order dated 15. 6. 2001 shall continue to be in force till the decision is taken by the competent authority as mentioned aforesaid. ( 11 ) THE writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. ( 12 ) INTERIM orders dated 11. 6. 2001 read with order dated 15. 6. 2001 shall continue to be in force till the decision is taken by the competent authority as mentioned aforesaid. ( 13 ) APPLICATION stands disposed of.