Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. In terms of the sanction, respondents sanctioned plan for construction of 24 flats on 1st floor to 6th floor. It, however, came to notice of the respondents PRDA, from report of Vigilance Cell that during construction of building in question, large scale deviations had been made from sanction plan and thereafter on submission of inspection report by Assistant Director, PRDA, holding appellant company responsible for substantial deviation for construction from sanction plan, a Vigilance Case bearing No. 11-A/2000 was instituted. During local inspection by the Vice- Chairman along with high officials of PRDA, measurement of construction in question was made in presence of representative of the appellant company, and finding gross violation of sanction plan, show cause had been issued against which a representation was filed in respect of (A) Set Back, (B) Balconies affecting Set Back, (C) Parking space, (D) Built UP Area and (E) Height of construction, in which while other deviations were sought to be justified on some excuses, the appellant company agreed to demolish 37 small cubicles, measuring 331.24 sq. mt. in basement. Though the representation of the appellant company to the extent that the area of left wall, fire escape, cut outs and ducts should be deleted from total built up area, found favour with the respondent PRDA, along with others, contention of the appellant that it was ready to seal the balcony area and not to leave it usable as additional built up area, was rejected.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in his anxiety to justify the construction made by the company beyond sanction plan, submits that so far as increase in height from 21 mt. to 31.05 mt. was concerned, Table 2 B-I of proviso 20.2.1 of the PRDA bye-laws does not put a bar on construction of the building, beyond 15 mt. height, and that apart, Note 1 of proviso 20 of the PRDA Bye-laws also provides for building above 30 mt. with extra set back. The contention is that apart from the fact that the set back, as required, are available, the appellant had also acquired adjacent land for covering up shortfall, if any, in the set back and as for construction of 46 flats against 24 flats, the argument is that for extra built up area, a revised map had already been submitted before the respondents and the appellant was ready to pay condonation/compounding fee as calculated by the PRDA for the said built up area. As for enclosing 3 mt. wide strip for road widening within the boundary wall, the argument is that as per provision of proviso 21.3 of PRDA Bye-laws, the land provided for road widening, voluntarily by the owner, shall be vacated by a deed of transfer to be executed by the owner in favour of the authority. But since, no such deed has been executed, the appellant had enclosed the said land within its boundary wall, in order to protect the strip of land from encroachment and being used for dumping of garbage and urination by the locals. However, the appellant undertakes to hand over the aforesaid strip of land to the PRDA as and when road will be widened and if there is execution of the sale deed. As for shortfall of Order 91 in the rear set back, the case of the appellant was that in fact shortfall was only to the extent of 11 cm. and not 95 cm., and that apart, the appellant was also entitled to 20% condonation in the rear set back under the provisions of proviso 10,2 and Appendix - L of the PRDA Bye-laws. As for ramp gradient, it was submitted that it had been rectified which would appear from revised map submitted by the appellant. For the excess built up area of the building to the extent of 4083.67 mt., the grievance of the appellant was that the built up area had not been properly measured after removal of 37 cubicles which being temporary construction, has since been removed. As for additional FAR and height of building, the contention of the appellant is that to meet the shortfall and deviation in the building, almost all the FAR variations including 3 upper floors stood removed, for which adjacent land was available and a development agreement too was entered, in which stipulations were made that additional built up area of Santosh Complex could be accommodated from the land attached to the plot and on these premises, with all stress, it was urged that the revised plan, submitted by the appellant, had taken care of all the shortcomings/shortfalls/deviations even they survive.

(b) Attested copy of the revenue receipt (Malguzari receipt/Municipal Holding Tax receipt with khesra/holding No. or mutation records :
Or affidavit or other documents acceptable to the authority.
The PRDA while considering application for development permit are obliged to ascertain about ownership/title of the complex and there is no gain saying that the document, which was placed before the PRDA to justify the deviation beyond sanction plan was only about acquisition of adjacent land on strength of an unjust development agreement, which in clear terms, did not satisfy the requirements enjoined in the statute. That apart, though the appellant was required either to remove the deviations or meet shortfall which were beyond sanction plan, nothing sort of that was exhibited on their part and instead of submission of revised plan, what was placed before the PRDA, was more or less a new plan for which sanction had been sought by the appellant. The conduct too of the appellant smacks fishy deal, as pursuant to submission of new plan, said to be a revised plan by them, they also served a notice on the PRDA in terms of Section 37(5) of the Act, and took plea that since no order was passed by the Vice Chairman within 30 days of service of notice, the plan in question was deemed to have been sanctioned. The evidences placed before us do suggest that the matter was enquired into by the respondents and it was found that the receipt clerk of the office had made back dated entry of the purported notice after deleting original letter which had been recorded against this number, and considering misconduct of the official, he had been put under suspension by the PRDA and a departmental proceeding had been initiated against him. This was not the end of the chapter. Even during pendency, the writ application before the learned Single Judge of this Court, a move to scuttle the stand of the PRDA was taken by the appellant by filing a title suit bearing No. 145 of 2003 before Sub Judge I, Patna, and even status quo In the matter had been obtained, notwithstanding that the jurisdiction of the civil Court in terms of Section 91 of the PRDA Act, 1981 was expressly barred. These aforesaid conducts admittedly gave rise to adequate grounds for prima facie suspense and connivance of the appellant with those who seem to be determined to defeat the object of the provisions of the bye-laws and the Act,

22. While parting with the judgment, we are constrained to observe that the facts brought on the record also largely reflect on working of the Patna Regional Development authority. After a plan is sanctioned by the PRDA, it is incumbent on them to have watch on the construction so as to frustrate the design of deviations of the developers. We believe that the PRDA must have agency to supervise the constructions which are being carried out under the sanction plan. Failure of the PRDA to have a watch or supervision on the construction leads to multiplicity of litigations and also expenses borne by the PRDA and at the same time it also becomes quite painful for the developers to demolish the construction found beyond sanction plan. It also adversely affects the interest of the tenants or the allottees for no fault of their own, and they too have to suffer the consequences and bear the brunt. If PRDA feels handicapped of such infrastructure to supervise the construction, before such situations arise before them, it is high time that they must ponder over it.