Jharkhand High Court
Ravi Prakash Singh vs Jam Notified Area Comm & Anr on 12 October, 2012
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. ( C) No. 1068 of 2007
Ravi Prakash Singh ...... ...... Petitioner
Versus
Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee, Jamshedpur & anr... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Gouri Devi, Adv.
For the Respondents : J. C. to S.C. (L&C)
06/12.10.2012Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The respondents had filed their counter affidavit through their counsel, who is now no more. By the previous order the State Counsel was directed to seek instruction and inform the respondents, Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee about the pendency of the case. However, no instructions have been furnished to the State Counsel and as such, on the basis of the affidavit of the Respondents, the matter is being heard and disposed of.
The petitioner is aggrieved by Letter no. 202 dated 15th February, 2007 issued by respondent no. 2, Special Officer, Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee, whereby he has been asked to demolish part of the building, said to be in contravention of the sanctioned plan. According to the petitioner, the impugned actions have been threatened without opportunity or show cause and without measurement of the alleged unauthorized construction by the respondents in presence of the petitioner. It is submitted that the notices dated 21st February, 2006 and 8th March, 2006, are in the nature of directions to stop unauthorized construction without first making an inspection for measurement of such unauthorized construction. It is submitted that the petitioner has a sanctioned plan and it is only a question of corridor, which is compoundable by way of paying fine of Rs. 500 under the relevant provisions of Bihar & Orissa Municipal Act now adopted by the State of Jharkhand.
From the affidavit on record filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that the impugned actions have been taken on account of the failure of the petitioner to respond to the notices earlier issued. By reading of the impugned order also it appears that earlier notices were given to the petitioner to stop/remove the unauthorized construction said to be made on the second floor of the house which the petitioner failed to respond, whereafter the order under challenge has been issued.
However, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the notices have been issued for removal of the alleged unauthorized construction of 2 the petitioner's house for which the petitioner has a sanctioned plan vide Annexure4 dated 15th December, 2004 without any physical inspection.
In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to make fresh inspection of the house of the petitioner in his presence and if any unauthorized construction is found thereafter steps may be taken in accordance with law. If any unauthorized construction is found beyond the sanctioned plan and is permissible to be regularized under the provisions of Act and the Rules of the Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee concerned, it would be open to the respondents to accept the compounding fee and regularize the construction. The matter is remanded back to the respondents authority to act in accordance with law in the aforesaid terms.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh,J) jk