Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Briefly stated, accused Nirmal Kumar ("Accused") is facing trial for the allegations that on 16.11.2015 at S-75, Panchsheel Co-operative Housing Society, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar, the accused being builder/occupier/owner of the said property was found carrying out unauthorized construction in the shape of basement and deviation against sanction building plan file no.


                                                                               ASHISH Digitally signed
FIR No:51/2016          PS: Malviya Nagar           State Vs. Nirmal Kumar            by ASHISH
                                                                               KUMAR KUMAR     MEENA
                                                                                      Date: 2024.10.03
                                                                               MEENA 15:28:17 +05'30'
7. Final arguments heard. Case file perused.
8. Short point for determination before this court is as under:
'' Whether 16.11.2015 at S-75, Panchsheela Co-operative Housing Society, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar, the accused being builder/occupier/owner of the said property was found carrying out unauthorized construction in the shape of basement and deviation against sanction building plan file no. 115/A/HO/94, dt. 26.07.1994 without permission/sanction from the concerned authority of South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC). Thus, the accused was booked under the Section 332 r/w 461 of The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (DMC Act)"

14. The case of the prosecution is that the accused, being in the capacity of builder/occupier/owner of the property in question bearing no. S75, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi has raised unauthorized construction of basement in deviation against sanctioned building plan vide file No. 115/A/HO/94, dt. 26.07.1994. The said construction was found to be in contravention of provision of DMC Act 1957.

15. In view of this court and as discussed above, the prosecution is not only required to prove that the accused is the owner/occupier/builder of the property in question, but the accused has erected or commenced to erect the said unauthorized construction.