Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Building deviation in Cbi V. Naresh Chandra & Ors vs Cbi on 21 December, 2018Matching Fragments
unauthorized construction on the plot in question. MCD never issued any communication to him in relation to the property in question. He stated that the property in question was subsequently regularized.
18.2. Accused Sri Ram Dandona (A2) admitted that form D1 bears his signature but he stated that it was a preformated document and the verification was only with regard to the completion of drainage, sanitary work and connection with water supply line. He had also signed the form D1 Ex.PW1/A only to that extent. He had no knowledge about the lodging of FIR by the Municipal Officer or the reasons for the same. He stated that the sanction plan did not have any kind of violations or deviations at any point of time. He stated that no search had taken place in his premises. He has been falsely implicated. He stated that he was not connected with the construction or supervision of the above property. He never certified at any point of time that the building was free from any kind of deviations or that he ever supervised the construction or day to day activities in the building. He never gave certificate that the work on the property was in accordance with the building bye laws and sanction building plan.
had also introduced the account of Vishal Sharma in Vijaya Bank, R.K. Puram and transferred the amount from his account into the account of Vishal Jain from which pay orders were got made in favour of DDA. A perpetual Lease Deed was executed on 28.02.1994, following which a proposal for sanction of building plan was submitted to the MCD on 28.02.1994. The plan was approved by the building plan committee on 29.04.1994 and released on 10.06.1994. The sanction plan was received by Ram Dandona A2. The construction commenced soon after the date of release of the sanction plan. On 25.08.1994, Sandeep Sharma, JE building issued the form C1 of the property against the certification from Ram Dandona to the effect that work has been done on the property in accordance with the building bye laws and no non compoundable deviations have been found. The building was structurally completed on the date on which form D1 i.e. 26.10.1994 was issued by J.P. Dabas, JE Building, MCD.
Naresh Chandra only for the preparation of the building plan for the plot in accordance with the building bye laws which he had duly prepared and was sanctioned by the MCD and released to him on 10.06.1994 which he handed over to the accused Naresh Chandra. Further, upon the request of the builder, he signed on Form C1 and D1 which were the formated documents which only pertained to the drainage and sanitary work as specified by regulation 7.2.2 and regulation 7.2.3 of the building bye laws 1983 applicable to the building in question. Ld. Counsel contended that the prosecution has failed to take into consideration the purpose and intent behind the form C1 and D1 which relate only to the water and sanitary work as clearly provided under the bye laws and regulations. Ld. Counsel contended that PW2 has admitted that the building plan was in accordance with the building bye laws and prevalent law which was approved by the building plan committee. Ld. Counsel contended that form C1 and D1 only relate the water supply / drainage/ sanitary works regarding which there was no deviation from the sanction building plan which fact has also been stated by PW1, PW3 and PW19. Ld. Counsel contended that PW1 has admitted that Form D1 Ex.PW1/A covenants the certification from the licensed plumber and the architect only to the extent that the sanitary and water supply work/ drainage work is complete. He also admitted that on Ex.PW1/A the dates of final inspection were blank. He admitted that form C1 is in regard to the underground drainage and pipe line work and the same precedes RC No. 44(A)/2000/CBI/ACB/ND 21.12.2018 72 of 168 CBI v. Naresh Chandra & Ors.
63. Facts & circumstances of the case show that the construction activity on the aforesaid plot started after 10.06.1994 when the sanction was communicated to the owner/architect vide letter RC No. 44(A)/2000/CBI/ACB/ND 21.12.2018 98 of 168 CBI v. Naresh Chandra & Ors.
99Ex.PW3/DX and the plan was received by the architect.
64. Perusal of the form C1 Mark PW1/B reveals that it was submitted on 25.08.1994. The form D1 Ex.PW1/A was submitted on 26.10.1994. Form C1 and Form D1 were signed by the architect Ram Dandona. In Form D1, he had certified that there were no noncompoundable deviations though in fact there were compoundable and non compoundable deviations. The building was inspected by the JE(B) on 31.10.1994. On finding large scale deviations in the construction, he registered an FIR Ex.PW1/B. On the same day, he issued the show cause notice Ex.PW3/Y1 calling upon the owner to demolish the unauthorized construction within six days. On 08.11.1994, a letter Ex.PW15/DC was addressed to ZE(B) by the accused Naresh Chandra in response to the letter dated 31.10.1994 that the above building has been constructed as per the sanctioned building plan. It was also stated in the letter that even if there is any deviation on the plot/construction beyond the permissible limit, they are prepared to pay the compounding fee for the same if any. All these correspondences show that major construction on the plot of land had taken place during the period after 10.06.1994 till 26.10.1994 when form D1 was submitted to the MCD. Naresh Chandra did not mention in the letter dated 08.11.1994 in what capacity he had written to the ZE (B) whether as an attorney of Mohan Jain and Deepika Jain or other capacity. It is pertinent to mention that Mohan Jain and Deepika Jain had already given General Power of Attorney and Special Power of Attorney in favour of Shashi RC No. 44(A)/2000/CBI/ACB/ND 21.12.2018 99 of 168 CBI v. Naresh Chandra & Ors.