ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.02.2018 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.2 in U.C Case No. 116/2016 whereby the said authority has ordered for demolition of the entire building premises known as ‘Mitra Complex’ situated over Survey Settlement No. 1921, Thana No. 205, Upper Bazar, Ranchi within 30 days and also directed for sealing the said building. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the building in question is situated over the land appertaining to M.S Plot No. 1921, Deenbandhu Babu Street, admeasuring 2252.80 sq. ft., which has been recorded in the name of Late Shailendra Nath Mitra, the grandfather of the petitioner. The said land was duly partitioned amongst the father and the uncles of the petitioner vide the registered deed of partition dated 01.08.1973. The petitioner’s father came in possession of the said land by virtue of the said registered deed of partition. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s father constructed G+1 building over the said land after getting the map sanctioned on 17.08.1974 by the Ranchi Improvement Trust. The petitioner’s father died on 30.06.1974. Thereafter, the petitioner’s mother applied for construction of three more floors i.e. second, third and fourth floor of the building in question before the Ranchi Improvement Trust on 07.05.1975 and a receipt to that effect was issued which has been annexed as Anneuxre-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner’s case is that though the map submitted by the petitioner’s mother was also sanctioned by the Ranchi Improvement Trust on 16.05.1975, however, in course of time, the said sanctioned map got misplaced. Even if it is presumed that the map submitted by the petitioner’s mother was not formally sanctioned by the Ranchi Improvement Trust, the same was deemed to have been sanctioned under the provisions of Section 6(5) of the Bihar Restriction of Uses of Land Act, 1948. It is further submitted that the petitioner (Pranab Kumar Mitra) was never served with notice by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation in connection with U.C Case No. 116/2016. The petitioner came to know about passing of the impugned order dated 20.02.2018 by the respondent No.2 in U.C Case No. 116/2016 only when the officers of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation came for sealing the building in question. The petitioner came to know about passing of the impugned order dated 20.02.2018 by the respondent No.2 in U.C Case No. 116/2016 only when the officers of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation came for sealing the building in question. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that a complaint was made by one Ram Pravesh Singh alleging unauthorised construction of the building in question by one Gautam Mitra. The petitioner is neither known as Gautam Mitra as his nick name nor there is any person of that name as the owner of the building in question. Despite the said fact, the respondent No.2 initiated unauthorised construction case against the said Gutam Mitra, who is a non-existent person and passed the impugned order dated 20.02.2018 whereby the building in question has been ordered to be demolished and sealed with imposition of a fine of Rs.8,00,000/-. It is further submitted that the petitioner had sold ten shops situated on the ground and first floor of the building in question. On sealing of the said floors of the building in question, the said shopkeepers approached the respondent No.2 by filing an application along with the sanctioned map for the ground and first floor of the building. Acknowledging the said fact, the respondent No.2 vide order dated 31.03.2018, amended the impugned order dated 20.02.2018 holding, inter alia, that the map/plan for G+1 of the building in question has already been sanctioned and accordingly the G+1 part of the building in question was ordered to be unsealed. Irrespective of the said fact, the shops of the petitioner which are situated on the ground floor as well as on the first floor, were not unsealed. The said action shows the arbitrariness on the part of the respondent No.2. The petitioner has directly invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court due to the reason that the Building Tribunal (appellate authority under the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2011’) is presently not functional due to lack of quorum. 3. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, while relying on the counter affidavit as well as the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, submits that a complaint was made by one Ram Pravesh Singh before the Ranchi Municipal Corporation regarding unauthorised construction of the building in question. 3. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, while relying on the counter affidavit as well as the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, submits that a complaint was made by one Ram Pravesh Singh before the Ranchi Municipal Corporation regarding unauthorised construction of the building in question. On receipt of the said complaint, the Junior Engineer of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation was directed to visit the building in question and report. On visiting the said building, the Junior Engineer submitted the report on 09.04.2016 that ‘Mitra Complex’ located at Suresh Babu Lane, Upper Bazar, Ranchi is a G+4 building. He met Gautam Mitra at the spot and asked to produce the sanctioned building plan, but the same was not produced by the said Gautam Mitra. Thereafter, U.C Case No. 116/2016 was registered against said Gautam Mitra and the date of hearing was fixed on 17.11.2016. The notices were issued to Gautam Mitra on 27.02.2017 and 12.05.2017 and finally a notice was published in the daily local newspaper (Dainik Bhaskar) on 11.10.2017 informing Gautam Mitra to appear before the respondent No.2 in U.C Case No. 116/2016. However, Gautam Mitra who is non else but the petitioner, did not appear before the respondent No.2. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 20.02.2018 directing demolition of the building in question exercising the power under Section 436 of the Act, 2011 and to seal the same before demolition and also imposing a penalty of Rs.8,00,000/- under Section 428 of the Act, 2011. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. It appears that the Ranchi Municipal Corporation received a complaint from one Ram Pravesh Singh alleging unauthorised construction of a building over the land in question. Thereafter, the Junior Engineer of Ranchi Municipal Corporation was directed to visit the said building and to report. As per the counter affidavit of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, the Junior Engineer visited the building and submitted the report dated 09.04.2016 annexed as Annexure-A series to the counter affidavit. On perusal of the said report, it appears that the same is merely a note written by one Vivek Kumar, Junior Engineer which does not even bear the signature of any representative of the owner of the building in question. On perusal of the said report, it appears that the same is merely a note written by one Vivek Kumar, Junior Engineer which does not even bear the signature of any representative of the owner of the building in question. The said note cannot be said to be an inspection report. Another important factual issue raised by the petitioner is that though the petitioner is the owner of the building in question, however, he is not known as Gautam Mitra. There is no such person known by the name of Gautam Mitra, who can be said to be the owner/co-owner of the building in question. It has also been stated in the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner that the Ranchi Municipal Corporation has been issuing the holding tax receipts of the building in question in the name of Pranab Kumar Mitra (the petitioner) Moreover, a trade license has also been issued in the same name. Considering the said fact, it is difficult to comprehend as to how the respondent No.2 proceeded to institute unauthorised construction case without verifying the fact as to who is the owner of the building in question particularly, in view of the fact that the Ranchi Municipal Corporation itself has issued the holding tax receipts as well as a trade license in the name of the petitioner (Pranab Kumar Mitra) for the building in question. Moreover, on sealing of the ground and first floor of the building in question, ten shopkeepers filed an application before the respondent No.2 along with the sanctioned map/plan for G+1 part of the said building. On appreciation of the said fact, the respondent No.2 himself accepted vide order dated 31.03.2018 that so far as G+1 part of the building in question is concerned, the map has already been sanctioned. Despite the said fact, though the other shops situated at the ground floor and the first floor of the building were directed to be unsealed, however, the petitioner’s shops situated at the ground floor and first floor have not been unsealed. 5. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 20.02.2018 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.2 in U.C Case No. 116/2016 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. 6. 5. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 20.02.2018 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.2 in U.C Case No. 116/2016 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. 6. The matter is remanded to the respondent No.2 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to present his case. If the Ranchi Municipal Corporation has not unsealed the shops of the petitioner situated at the ground and first floor of the building in question as yet, the same shall be unsealed forthwith. 7. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. 8. Consequently, I.A. No. 3761/2018 also stands disposed of.