Judgment By Court In compliance with the directions of this Court as contained in the order dated 23.07.2009, the respondent R.R.D.A. has filed a supplementary counter affidavit annexing thereto a sketch plan prepared after carrying out a fresh inspection of the premises of the respondent No. 3 and indicating in the map the deviations which the respondent No. 3 has purportedly made beyond the approved plan. 2. Challenge in this writ application is to the order / judgment dated 7.2.2004 / 6.5.2004 (Annexure-3) passed in M.A. No. 1 /1998 and M.A. No. 18/1999, passed by the Appellate Tribunal, R.R.D.A., Ranchi, whereby the Appeals filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.12.1997 in U.C. Case No. 81/1995 and order dated 17.12.1999 passed in B.C. Case No. 778/1995 respectively, passed by the Vice Chairman R.R.D.A., Ranchi was dismissed. By the order passed in U.C. Case No. 81/1995, a direction was given to the petitioner to demolish the unauthorized structures and by order passed in B.C. Case No. 778/1995 the petitioner’s prayer for approval of the supplementary plan, was rejected. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the main ground of grievance of the petitioner is that the purported deviations which the petitioner has made and which is sought to be demolished by the order issued by the respondent R.R.D.A., is identical to the same extent as the deviations carried out by the respondent No. 3 within his premises. The petitioner, for the purpose of ratification of the purported deviations, has submitted a supplementary plan along with the requisite fee but the respondent R.R.D.A. has refused to approve the supplementary plan and to regularize the extended portion of construction of the petitioner. On the other hand, the respondent No. 3 who had also carried out the additional constructions to the same extent as the petitioner, has been given the favour of approval of his supplementary plan. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is a gross abuse of the powers of the respondent authorities of the R.R.D.A. and amounts to gross discrimination and arbitrary denial of the benefit to the petitioner which was extended to the respondent No. 3. 5. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is a gross abuse of the powers of the respondent authorities of the R.R.D.A. and amounts to gross discrimination and arbitrary denial of the benefit to the petitioner which was extended to the respondent No. 3. 5. Disputing the sketch plan which has now been submitted by the respondent R.R.D.A. after carrying out a fresh inspection of the premises of the respondent No. 3, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the sketch map is totally misleading and as a matter of fact, this has been prepared only to further accommodate the respondent No. 3. Learned counsel explain that the extra construction of the respondent No. 3 includes two rooms, a verandah with toilets and comprising of the same area which the petitioner has covered byway of additional constructions. Yet, whereas the entire constructions made by the petitioner in the extended area have been declared as illegal, only a very minuscule portion of the extended area constructed by the respondent No. 3 has been shown as deviation from the approved plan. The contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioner’s claim is based on the approval of the supplementary plan which the R.R.D.A. has given to the respondent No. 3 and denial of such approval to the supplementary plan submitted by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 would argue that for the approval of the deviations which he has carried out, the respondent No. 3 has submitted his plan for approval and it was only after inspection carried out by the respondent authorities of the R.R.D.A. that his supplementary plan was approved and there is no illegality committed by the respondent No. 3. Learned counsel submits further that he is not concerned whatsoever with the grievance of the petitioner vis-à-vis the dispute raised by the petitioner against the refusal of approval of the petitioner’s plan by the respondent R.R.D.A. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent R.R.D.A. would explain that upon re-inspection of the premises of the respondent No. 3, it was detected that extended constructions have been made by him over areas for which there was no prior approval from the R.R.D.A. and consequently, the R.R.D.A. is contemplating to take necessary action against the respondent No. 3 for demolition of the unapproved additional constructions carried out by him. As regards the petitioner’s claim, learned counsel explains that the deviations carried out by the petitioner were seen and after proper verification, the deviations up to the permissible limit of up to 20% was allowed, but such deviations which were found beyond the 20% permissible limit, the R.R.D.A. did not have competence to authorize approval of the extended constructions and it was therefore that the petitioner was directed to demolish the additional unauthorized constructions. Offering support to the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal learned counsel submits that the Tribunal’s order is a reasoned and speaking order and there is no perversity or illegality in the same which could call for any interference by this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, would argue that the petitioner’s main contention was the arbitrary and discriminatory treatment meted out to the petitioner vis-à-vis the respondent No. 3. 9. From the perusal of the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal, it appears that the petitioner had challenged two separate and distinct orders. The first one was the order dated 01.01.1998 passed in U.C. Case No. 81/95 by the authority concerned whereby the petitioner was directed to demolish the purported illegal structures. The other is the order dated 17.02.1999 passed in B.C. Case No. 778 of 1995 by the Vice Chairman, R.R.D.A. whereby the petitioner’s prayer for approving the supplementary building plan has been refused. The Appellate Tribunal, while considering the two separate issues, had observed that the Tribunal did not have authority to go into the grievance of the petitioner in respect of the order passed in the B.C. case in view of the fact that the Tribunal does not have power to hear any appeal against such order either under Section 54(2) or Section 89 of the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act, 2001. The only authority to hear the appeal against the impugned orders of refusal to approve the building plan, is the Board of Appeals which has been vested with the powers under Section 37 of the Act read with Regulation No. 7.5 of the Building Bye-laws issued by the Regional Development Authority. As regards the first issue relating to the impugned order passed in U.C. No. 81/1995, the tribunal has rejected the appeal of the petitioner on two grounds. As regards the first issue relating to the impugned order passed in U.C. No. 81/1995, the tribunal has rejected the appeal of the petitioner on two grounds. One of the grounds being that though the petitioner appears to have claimed parity with the treatment purportedly meted out to respondent No. 3 by the R.R.D.A., yet such order, purportedly passed in favour of the respondent No. 3, was not challenged in any proceeding and therefore the petitioner could not possibly claim any benefit from the orders which were passed in favour of the respondent No. 3. The second ground on which the petitioner’s prayer has been rejected is from the admitted facts namely that the petitioner had admittedly carried out certain constructions without prior approval of the plan and such deviations, according to the respondent R.R.D.A., could not be condoned beyond the limit of 20%. The Tribunal has also observed that the original report in respect of the deviations, which was submitted by the Town Planner together with a detailed sketch map, was considered and accepted by the Vice Chairman of the R.R.D.A. The Tribunal has also observed that though the petitioner has not denied the additional construction which has been carried out by him, but has sought to justify the same on the ground that similar additional construction having been made by the respondent No. 3 and the same having been approved by the R.R.D.A., the same benefit ought to have been given to the petitioner. The Appellate Tribunal has observed that this argument of the petitioner is not tenable in view of the fact that though a B.C. Case against the respondent No. 3 was initiated by the concerned authorities in respect of the purported illegal constructions carried out by the respondent No. 3, but the proceeding was dropped and no effort was taken up for reviving the proceeding against Respondent No. 3. 10. From the observations of the Tribunal it is manifest that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that the proceedings against the respondent No. 3, for certain illegal construction carried out by him, were infact initiated though later dropped. 10. From the observations of the Tribunal it is manifest that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that the proceedings against the respondent No. 3, for certain illegal construction carried out by him, were infact initiated though later dropped. The petitioner cannot claim parity of any benefit which the respondent No. 3 may have derived due to the lapse of the R.R.D.A. The petitioner must stand on the merits of his own case and in the light of the admitted position that certain illegal constructions have been made by the petitioner which, even after allowing the concession up to the limit of 20%, cannot possibly be approved, the petitioner is legally bound to remove the unauthorized constructions. 10. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality, perversity or impropriety in the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this writ application and therefore the same is dismissed. This order shall however not deprive the petitioner of preferring an appeal against the order of non-approval of the petitioner’s building plan before the Board of Appeals. Learned counsel for the respondent R.R.D.A. assures that if the petitioner prefers any such appeal within 15 days from the date of this order, the respondent R.R.D.A. will not take any action on the basis of the impugned order of demolition. Meanwhile, the Respondent R.R.D.A. shall be at liberty to take appropriate action on the alleged deviations made by the respondent No. 3.