Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

" "O R D E R E D"

that the persons responsible, the present owners of the suit premises shall demolish all portions constructed unauthorizedly at all floor levels deviated from the sanctioned building plan No. 64 dt. 3.10.97 at their own risk and cost to provide the stipulated widths of mandatory open spaces in the front, on the both sides and at the back side of the building and also to comply the sanctioned condition for throwing or strip of land having width 0.60 M. for the entire length on the southern side along with the portions of land for splaying of corner, 2.40 M. on each southern side and eastern side of that corner to K.M.C. Road and boundary wall of the suit premises may be constructed in compliance to the said B.S. plan. The persons responsible are at liberty to apply for obtaining sanction for construction of stair within sanctioned space.

After hearing both sides the S.O. (B) observed that the construction was made unauthorisedly in deviation of the sanctioned building plan No. 64 dt. 3.10.97. There was unauthorised construction on all the 4 sides and at all floor levels and there was also unauthorised construction of a room in the front and also a stair room at the back. There was also construction of projected cantilever of all sides causing encroachment of land gifted to K.M.C. meant for splaying corner and also throwing of strip of land on the southern side for the entire length having width "60 mtr. resulting in infringement of Building Rules 54, 56, 57, 61 and 62 very grossly and major in nature which can not be ignored and the person responsible of the suit premises shall have to demolish unauthorised portion of the building constructed which was in deviation of the Building Plan. There was also violation of Building Rule 51 (1) (b) of the Bldg. Rules. Further the P.Rs have not complied with the Rule 51 also not honoured their undertaking to gift land to K.M.C. for splaying corner.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case the S.O. (B) ordered that the P.R. of the suit premises shall demolish all portion constructed unauthorisedly at all floor levels which were in deviation of the sanctioned building plan No. 64 dt. 3.10. 97 in order to provide width of mandatory open space on the front, back and both sides of the building and also for complying the sanctioned condition of their land having width of '60 mtr. for the entire length on the southern side along with portion of land for splaying of corner of 2.40 mtr. on each southern side and eastern side of that corner of K.M.C. road and boundary wall of the said premises may be constructed in compliance with the said Building Plan. The S.O. (B) has given option to the P.Rs. for applying for sanction of construction of stair within the sanctioned space.

Point for consideration as to whether the order as passed by S.O. (B) was illegal and bad in law and therefore liable to be set aside.

Decision with reason:

The Ld. Lawyer appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that the appellants are the owners of the premises. The plan was sanctioned on 3.1097 but construction was made in deviation of the sanctioned building plan as per departmental allegation. But he submitted that the précis relates to only 3rd storey. The notice U/s. 400(1) was served upon the appellants in respect of only 3rd storey but the S.O. (B) directed to demolish the unauthorised construction in respect of all floors of the building. He argued that the complainant i.e. Respondent No. 4 is the concerned with his structure. 90%portion belonging to the appellant and only 1% portion lies the structure of the Respondent no. 4. He argued that the complainant did not raise his construction following the Building Rules. One portion has been attached of the complainants' premises. The appellants purchased the land on the northern side of the complaint premises. He argued that précis was defective and so the matter should be remanded back to the S.O. (B) for a fresh hearing after serving them opportunity to prove their case, by submitting their objection. He argued that none was affected due to such construction.