Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. It is further stated in the counter that the petitioner after receipt of the notice dated 7-6-1991 as also 19-8-1991 filedE.P.No.23 of 1991 in O.S. No. 2804 of 1982 seeking execution of the decree under Order 21, Rule 32, C.P.C. by way of arrest and detention of the Commissioner/Special Officer - Judgment debtor in civil prison. Pending E.P., petitioner obtained interim injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the construction. Executing Court by its order dated 15-7-1993 dismissed the E.P. holding that the petitioner did not place any material before the Court to establish that the construction was within the limits prescribed by the deemed sanction. The learned Judge also found that the petitioner has not placed any material before the Court to indicate that the alleged deviation pointed out in the notice are not in violation of the deemed sanction plan and categorically stated that the petitioner shall not carry on any construction violating the building bye-laws and zoning regulations and that in the absence of any clinching piece of evidence to prove the contention of the petitioner, it must be presumed that deviations pointed out by the respondent are in violation of the building rules and "The Act" and that the construction made by the petitioner violating the deemed sanctioned plan and building regulations, the respondent will be entitled to initiate action following the due course of law. Learned Judge specifically reserved the right of the petitioner to approach the executing Court for appropriate reliefs if the respondent interferes with the construction in spite of the constuction carried on in accordance with the deemed sanctioned plan. The petitioner ought to have approached the executing Court only. Having invoked the jurisdiction of the executing Court and having invited an order, sought to challenge the same by way of a revision petition in the High Court; the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and on that ground, this writ petition is not maintainable. The Order of the executing Court is binding on both the parties.

9. It was also stated in the counter that the construction is in violation of the bye-laws, zoning regulations and multi-storyed building regulations in respect of permissible floor areas, car parking space and the space to be left on all the sides, land use as well as height of the building and that the approach and access to the building is insufficient for free movement of vehicles coming to the complex and that the demolition of the building by the respondent is strictly confined to the deviations which are in contravention of the provisions of "The Act", bye-laws, zoning regulations and multi-storyed building regulations. It is also alleged that when the Corporation wanted to issue public notice warning intending purchasers about the unauthorised construction, the petitioner obtained an order of status quo dated 18-2-1993 in E.A. No. 8 of 1991 regarding publication in the newspapers under the caption "Purchasers Beware" and that the petitioner is not entitled to contend that the interest of third parties will be jeopardised if demolition of the building is carried on by the respondent. The claim of the petitioner for damages is denied and it is stated that the respondent is not responsible for payment of damages or compensation claimed by the petitioner as the construction made by the petitioner is not in accordance with the provisions of "The Act" and the bye-laws made thereunder and regulations. The respondent, demolished the building to the extent of violations and deviations and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim damages for its illegal activity. It is also stated that the action of demolition was undertaken in public interest and in accordance with law. Therefore, the claim for damages by the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, it is prayed that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

"The petitioner has not placed nay material before the Court to come to a conclusion that the construction is being carried on in the suit premises as per the deemed sanctioned plan. On the other hand, the petitioner tried to orally convince the Court that the construction is not in deviation against the building bye-laws and zoning regulations. Further, the counsel contended that the notices do not speak about Ex. A. 13, the deemed sanctioned plan. It is not out of place to mention that in the absence of the petitioner placing any material evidence before the Court, it is not possible to come to a conclusion that the construction is within the limits prescribed by the deemed sanctioned plan.

39. Lastly, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the entire action of demolition suffers from legal mala fides. The Corporation having suffered a Judgment in the civil Court and lost the legal battle resorted to this high handed-illegal action of demolition. What the Corporation could not achieve through the legal battle, it achieved through its high-handed action and the said action is not bona fide and is.vitiated by legal mala fides. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon adecision reported in Partap Singh v. State of Punjab, . It is not necessary for us to deal with this contention in detail having regard to the findings arrived at by us in the foregoing paragraphs viz., that the civil Court's decree will not bar the demolition of the building if the construction is in deviation of the provisions of the Act, Bye-laws, Zoning Regulations, 1981 and Multistoreyed Building Regulations, 1981. In this connection, it is necessary to refer to the observations of the executing Court contained in para 35 of the order while dismissing E.P. No. 23 of 1991 dated 15-7-1993.