Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Unauthorised Construction

4. During the investigation a Technical Committee was constituted by MCD on the request of CBI to examine this building and report the deviations made by the owner/builder in the construction vis-a-vis from the sanctioned plan/ building bye-laws. The said committee reported that the building has been constructed in violation of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as against the permissible FAR of 160, the same has been constructed with FAR of 189.79. Out of this only 1.75 is compoundable and remaining FAR of 28.04 is non-compoundable. The Committee further reported that the building is being used for commercial purposes as against the permissible use of domestic purposes. There is also non-compoundable encroachments on the right side set back and non-permissible temporary construction over terrace floor. Besides it, there were roof projections, partition wall in rear set back, width of balconies, specification of two service staircases and construction of pergola being not as per building bye-laws.

Alleged Role of MCD Officials.

5. It is further alleged that D.K. Gupta (A-7) the then A.E (building) and Ranjan Shukla (A-4), J.E ( Building) have intentionally omitted to inspect/record inspection note qua the construction of building at various stages as required under the Instructions issued during the year 1988. It was done with a view to cause undue favour to the owners/builders. Further, Ranjan Shukla (A-4) submitted a false report on 07.08.1998 that the building was being constructed as per building bye-laws and got issued the C-form despite the encroachments. A-4 deliberately did not take any action for the said deviations with dishonest intention. Even the report submitted by B.K. Garg, JE (Building) who inspected the building on 01.09.1998 reported that the covered area of basement is more than the sanctioned building plan.

5.1 Further, D.K. Gupta (A-7), AE ( Building) too deliberately overlooked the omissions, despite the fact that he was supposed to inspect the building at various stages. As per the Instructions of 1988, A-7 was required to intimate the Executive Engineer (Co-ordination), MCD, HQ about the construction of the building so that the Committee constituted by the Commissioner, MCD may inspect the building at various stage of construction. Further, A-7 did not take any approval of ADC/ZAC before issuance of C and D forms. As the investigation revealed that the building was being constructed in violation of building bye-laws and deviations from sanctioned building plan, both A-4 and A-7 were required to book, seal and demolish the unauthorised construction. The said accused persons deliberately did not act due to their dishonest intention to give undue favour to owners/builders. Further, form D has been issued on 14.08.1998 by both the accused persons within 7 days of issue of Form-C. It is, thus, established that at the time of issue of Form-D, the building was under construction, but the same was issued. Both A-4 and A-7 got issued Form D to the owner by abusing their official position in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with the owners and others.

5.3 It is further submitted that on transfer of Ranjan Shukla (A-4), J.E ( Building), Yogender Pal Singh (A-5) joined as J.E (Building), MCD on 08.03.1999 who too joined criminal conspiracy with other accused persons. A-5 made several visits during his tenure when the unauthorised construction was in progress in the said property, but he deliberately omitted to take actions with a view to cause undue favour to the owner/builder in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy. The investigation revealed that the said property was booked for unauthorised construction by Yogender Pal (A-5), J.E ( Building), South Zone, MCD on 01.12.2019 and was approved by Naveen Garg, Z.E. On the same day the show cause notice was issued to the owners of the property for submitting their explanation within three days. A-1 submitted his explanation on the same day and requested for regularization of the building. In his application, Raj Sarogi (A-1) stated that some unauthorisation portion would be demolished by him. However, A-1 deliberately omitted to demolish the unauthorised constructions i.e (i) extra space occupied on left and right side set backs (ii) extra space occupied on rear side set back (iii) space occupied by covering the court yard and (iv) excess area covered in the basement. Investigation also disclosed that Yogender Pal Singh (A-5) too submitted wrong report about demolition carried out by him during the month of December,1999. He also omitted to report the deviations/unauthorised construction in the building in violation of Building Bye-Laws/ Sanctioned Building Plan.