JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Oral) The controversy involved in both these writ petitions is same, therefore, for sake of convenience, these writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment and order. 2. By means of these writ petitions, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.5.2001 passed by respondent no.9, whereby IV Additional Judge Dehradun has exercised power of Tribunal u/s 26(B)(2) of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act 1973 (for short, the Act) and has allowed the application of the respondents. 3. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition are, that respondent no.1 instituted a suit for compensation u/s 26-B(2) of the Act before the Tribunal claiming therein that his structure has been illegally demolished by Mussorie Dehradun Development Authority (MDDA) and MDDA is liable to give compensation for the same. He further alleged in the claim petition that the demolition has been carried out u/s 26-A of the Act therefore he is liable to be given compensation u/s 26-B of the Act. The suit was contested by the MDDA by filing objections. It was alleged by MDDA that structure erected by respondent no.1 was illegal, unauthorised and on public property and in violation of the Act, hence it was demolished u/s 26-C of the Act. 4. On the basis of pleadings, learned Tribunal framed following issues:- i) Whether the plaintiff/claimant is owner of disputed property and has made construction by encroachment? ii) Whether in demolishing the disputed property the defendants have acted beyond their rights? iii) Whether on account of demolition the plaintiff/claimant is entitled to receive Rs.1,50,000/-? iv) Whether the plaintiff/claimant has suffered mental agony by demolition of disputed property and is entitled for Rs.50,000/- as compensation? v) Whether by demolition of disputed property he has suffered loss of stocks amounting to of Rs.2.00 Lakhs? vi) Whether the suit is not maintainable? vii) Whether the encroachment has been removed by the claimant himself? viii) To what amount of compensation, if any, the claimant is entitled for? 5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence. Learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties and on perusal of record, held that demolition has been done without prior notice. vi) Whether the suit is not maintainable? vii) Whether the encroachment has been removed by the claimant himself? viii) To what amount of compensation, if any, the claimant is entitled for? 5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence. Learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties and on perusal of record, held that demolition has been done without prior notice. Learned Tribunal also perused the affidavit filed by Ramesh Kumar Goyal Executive Engineer to the effect that encroachment was done by the applicant on a public property, but no specific measurement has been given as to what is the width of the road. The applicant along with his affidavit also filed valuation report and indicated as to what loss he has suffered. By its order dated 26.5.2001, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,60,665/- to respondent no.1 as compensation. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.5.2001, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/MDDA. 7. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the legal grounds, firstly, that Additional District Judge IV is not a Tribunal constituted u/s 26(B)(2) of the Act and therefore the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. 8. Secondly, the proceedings initiated against the respondent no.1 were u/s 26-C of the Act and not u/s 26-A of the Act. 9. Thirdly, u/s 26-C of the Act, no notice is required to be given before demolishing the construction. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 11. At the outset it may be mentioned that the scope of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is limited. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot sit like a court of appeal and cannot re-appreciate or reevaluate the evidence so as to arrive at a different conclusion. Only perversity in the impugned order can be seen to find out whether there is a case of mis-reading of evidence by the courts concerned. 12. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot sit like a court of appeal and cannot re-appreciate or reevaluate the evidence so as to arrive at a different conclusion. Only perversity in the impugned order can be seen to find out whether there is a case of mis-reading of evidence by the courts concerned. 12. So far as first contention of the petitioner is concerned, under Article 236 of the Constitution of India, interpretation has been made to the effect that “district Judge” includes Additional District judge, joint district judge, assistant district judge, chief judge of a small cause court, chief presidency magistrate, additional chief presidency magistrate, sessions judge, additional sessions judge and assistant sessions judge; Therefore, in view of above Article, learned Additional District Judge has rightly exercised power u/s 26-B(2) of the Act of District Judge. 13. So far as second contention is concerned, learned Addl. District Judge, after perusal of the entire evidence led by the parties, has held that on behalf of the opposite party affidavit has been filed by Sri Ramesh Kumar Goyal, Executive Engineer, Nirman Khand, Dehradun. No evidence was led on behalf of the P.W.D. to show whether the applicant has encroached upon the public property. In absence of any evidence, it was burden upon the petitioner to make out the case u/s 26(c) of the Act. The petitioner has utterly failed to establish this fact that it is a case u/s 26(c) of the Act. 14. In the light of aforesaid, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The writ petitions lack merit and are dismissed accordingly. 15. Interim orders dated 07.09.2001 passed by this Court in both writ petitions are vacated.