Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7 The learned Special Tribunal, by virtue of the impugned order dated 10.09.2020, decided the appeal filed by the private respondents against the demolition notice dated 05.04.2019 as also the revision petition filed by the said respondents against the sealing order dated 23.07.2020 by formulating a common judgment which is impugned herein. The Tribunal has, while recording that the private respondents have deviated from the sanctioned building plan by raising height of the building up-to 51 feet instead of permitted 40 feet and the said deviation has been converted into full fledged floor and attic floor, held that the Corporation cannot be allowed to demolish the same as it would subject the private respondents to huge loss and that if the deviations are not compounded, it would amount to bringing down the whole construction which will cause huge prejudice to the rights and interests of the private respondents. Accordingly, the Special Tribunal regularized the deviations committed by the private respondents while raising the construction of the building in question by compounding the same against payment of composition fee. 8 Regarding the sealing order, the Tribunal held that the construction raised by the private respondents does not fall within the meaning of „unauthorized building‟ as contained in Bye-law 2.1.1 because the private respondents have been permitted to raise the construction on spot. Thus, according to the Special Tribunal, the order of sealing issued by the Corporation is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 9 The writ petitioners have challenged the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on the grounds that the impugned order dated 10.09.2020 is without jurisdiction as the Tribunal has no power to compound the illegal construction and that no revision lies before the Tribunal against an order of sealing issued by the Corporation. It has been contended that raising of height of a building by more than 1.5 per cent beyond permissible limit and construction of an additional floor beyond permissible limit amounts to major deviation and, therefore, a non-compoundable item. It has also been contended that the Tribunal has fallen into error by holding that the deviations made by the private respondents do not fall within the ambit of „unauthorized building‟ as defined in the Byelaws of 2011 because all deviations of building permission constitute „unauthorized construction‟. Therefore, it was not open to the Tribunal to de-seal the structure and allow the private respondents to violate the order(s) of the Tribunal.

14 From the above, it is clear that the Supreme Court has, after analyzing the issue at length, laid down broad tests for coming to a conclusion whether a writ petition on behalf of an applicant is maintainable. Thus, for deciding whether a writ petition is maintainable at the instance of an applicant, it has to be seen whether the applicant is a person whose legal rights have been infringed or whether he is a person who has suffered a legal grievance and a decision has been rendered against him depriving him of something or whether he has a special and substantial grievance of his own beyond some grievance or inconvenience suffered by him in common with the rest of the public and if so, whether he would be prejudicially affected in exercise of that right by the act of usurpation of jurisdiction on the part of the authority. In the light of the aforesaid tests, let us now proceed to consider the facts of the instant cases. 15 It is an admitted fact that the petitioner Shabir Ahmad Gojawari has filed a civil suit against the private respondents before the civil Court for adjudication of his civil rights as against the private respondents and he has sought an injunction to restrain the private respondents from raising construction which is in deviation of the sanctioned building permission. It is also not in dispute that petitioner Shabir Ahmad Gojawari is running his business establishment adjacent to the building of the private respondents. Whether any of his civil rights is violated by the deviations that may have been committed by the private respondents while raising construction of their building on spot, is a question to be decided by the civil Court. The regularization and compounding of these deviations in terms of the impugned judgment of the Special Tribunal has the potential of rendering the suit filed by the petitioner Shabir Ahmed Gojawari as infructuous. Therefore, if the order of compounding of deviations passed by the Special Tribunal, is left unchallenged, it may have adverse consequences to the case of the plaintiff in the civil suit. Thus, it is a case where the petitioner Shabir Ahmad Gojawari has a special and substantial grievance of his own beyond the grievance of other persons living in the vicinity, as such, it cannot be stated that petitioner Shabir Ahmad Gojawari is a busy body or a stranger at whose instance the writ petition would not be maintainable. He has a substantial interest in challenging the impugned order passed by the Special Tribunal. The writ petition at his instance is, therefore, held to be maintainable.

23 The question whether the deviations and contraventions committed by the private respondents while erecting the building in question, are minor in nature or in other words, are compoundable in nature, has to be decided by the Commissioner in the first instance and not by the Tribunal. The contention of the writ petitioners that the deviations were non- compoundable in nature and the contention of the learned appearing for the private respondents that these deviations were compoundable in nature being not in violation of the relevant building byelaws and the Master plan/land use, are matters which can be determined and decided in the first instance by the Commissioner, Srinagar Municipal Corporation. Therefore, this Court would desist from rendering any opinion on this aspect of the matter at this stage lest it may prejudice the respective cases of the parties.

33 If we have a look at Byelaw No. 2.1.1, it defines „unauthorised building‟ as a building undertaken after a building permit has lapsed or after a building permit has been revoked. The reasoning adopted by the Tribunal that, once a building permission has been issued and is valid even if the said building is raised in contravention of the building permission, the same would not qualify to be an unauthorized building, is absolutely flawed. What byelaw No. 2.1.1 conveys is that unauthorized building is a building which is undertaken without grant of permission, meaning thereby if a building activity is undertaken regarding which there is no permission, it would constitute an unauthorized building. To quote an example, if there is a building permission for raising three storeyed building and the person concerned constructs an additional fourth floor, the additional 4 th floor would constitute „unauthorized building‟. Any deviation from the building permission would always constitute an unauthorized construction. The Tribunal by adopting flawed reasoning which is against the logic and common sense has termed the „unauthorized construction‟ of the private respondents as authorized one and thereafter set aside the sealing order. The ground on which the Tribunal has quashed the order of sealing is absolutely perverse and liable to be set aside.