ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI) 1. Board has been revised. No one appears for the petitioner to press this petition. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.06.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, wherein before the District Judge the competent authority-ONGC has filed a Civil Misc. Application No.129 of 1999 for issuance of direction to the respondents to remove the encroachment made in the ROU (Right of User) area. The District Judge has allowed the application and directed the respondents to remove the alleged encroachment within a specified time limit otherwise the competent authority shall remove the encroachment. 3. In this petition there was no interim order granted by this Court. The learned District Judge has recorded the categorically finding of fact in paragraph-9. The relevant part is reproduced as under: “So from the evidence on record I have no hesitation to hold that the construction of house no.11, 38 and 40 are made in ROU area and there by the said construction are encroachment in ROU area. Therefore, I answer pointno.1in affirmative. It is no say of the opponents that the ROU area is not acquired by the ONGC. The Section 9 of P.M.P. Act 1962 has put restriction regarding use of the land. As per the sub-section 1 the owner or occupier of the land with respect of which a declaration has been made under Sub-section 1 of Section 6, shall be entitled to use the land for the purpose for which land was put to use immediately before the date of the notification under subsection (1) of Section 3 provided that such owner or occupier shall not after the declaration under sub-section (1)of Section 6, construct any building or any other structure or excavate any tank, well, reservoir or dam or plant any tree. Section 9 of sub-section 3 of P.M.P. Act 1962 provides that where the owner or occupier of the land with respect to which a declaration has been made under sub-section 1 of section 6(a) constructs any building or any other structure (b) constructs of excavates any we, tank, reservoir or dam or (c) plans any tree on that land, the court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such land is situate may, on an application made to it by the competent authority and after holding such inquiry as it may deem fit, cause the building, structure, reservoir, dam or tree to be removed or the well or tank to be filled up, and the costs of such removal or filing up shall be recoverable from such owner or occupier in the same manner as if the order for the recovery of such costs were a decree made by the Court. So from the provision of sub-section 9 the Court of the District Judge is empowered to pass order for removal of construction etc. and to be filled up well or tank etc.” 4. The District Judge has clearly held that the houses have been constructed by encroachers-the present petitioner on the ROU (Right of User) area which was not permissible. 5. For the reasons given above, we do not find any merit in this petition. This petition is fails and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged. No costs.