Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The learned Counsel Sri M.R.K. Chowdary appearing for the owners of the premises in question contended that the impugned order dated 23-10-1998 passed by the Commissioner is in violation of the principles of natural justice. According to the learned Counsel though a show-cause notice dated 27-8-1998 was issued by the Commissioner except stating that there was misrepresentation and playing fraud no details of the said alleged misrepresentation and the fraud played by the owners were not specified in order to give an opportunity to the owners to explain the said alleged misrepresentation and the fraud played. In the absence of any such clear reference to the alleged misrepresentation or fraud played by the owners, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is liable to be struck down on that simple ground of violation of principles of natural justice. It is contended that the purpose of issuing a notice is to give an effective opportunity to the affected party before passing any order to explain the allegations made against them, but the notice is silent about the allegations. The vague reference of material misrepresentation of facts or playing fraud would amount to denial of opportunity to explain those allegations. Further, the learned Counsel contended that the impugned order was passed on 23-10-1998 cancelling the regularisation of the deviations/ unauthorised constructions on the grounds which are not specified in the notice. It is contended that the owners of the premises submitted their application jointly for the sanction of a plan for the construction of the building in question. As there were certain deviations or additions over and above the sanctioned plan, in fact they made an application to the Government for regularisation but before any order is being passed by the Government, as the Government issued various Government Orders for regularisation of deviations and unauthorised constructions, the owners made their application to the Commissioner and thereafter those applications were considered and after due verification of the constructions effected on the ground, passed orders regularising the deviations, therefore, there is absolutely no misrepresentation of facts or fraud played by the owners. Hence sought for quashing of the impugned proceedings.

7. Coming to the other two writ petitions, the learned Counsel Sri G.S. Rao appearing for the petitioners contended that the owners purchased an extent of 300 sq. yards jointly who are husband and wife. In respect of the said property, a plan was got sanctioned by the Corporation for the construction of a single building but while effecting the construction, they have violated and deviated the sanctioned plan and constructed an additional floor violating the Building Bye-laws and that when the Corporation attempted to take action, they obtained orders from the Civil Court and carried on the deviated constructions even contrary to the orders of the Civil Court which passed the order of status quo. Thereafter, to take advantage of the Government Orders for regularisation, the owners have fraudulently misrepresented to the Commissioner as if there was an oral partition and each of the owner is having less than 200 sq. mtrs., and accordingly submitted separate applications and obtained orders of regularisation by playing fraud as well as misrepresenting the facts. As the authorities noticed the misrepresentation of facts as well as the fraud played on the Corporation issued a notice and thereafter cancelled the regularisation of deviated constructions. The learned Counsel contended that the owners made the construction without leaving the setbacks as per the Building Bye-laws and constructed almost touching the boundary walls. It is also stated that as per the Building Bye-laws as the width of the road is less than 12 mtrs., abutting the property in question, the maximum permitted height of the building is only 33 feet, but the owners have built up to 44 feet by putting almost an additional floor thereby affecting the light and ventilation to the neighbours. The learned Counsel also contended that as per the various Government Orders, the floor area ratio as fixed is only 1:1.25 which was fixed in G.O. Ms. No.249 dated 23-5-1996 but subsequently even the said ratio was reduced in G.O. Ms. No.423 dated 6-8-1998 to 1:1, but the owners of the property in question effected the constructions far exceeding the floor area ratio 1:1.25. The learned Counsel also contended that as the Division Bench of this Court has already held that the Government has no power to grant any regularisation and quashed G.O. Ms. No.419 dated 30-7-1998. The other G.Os. issued such as G.O. Ms. No.289 dated 25-5-1998 which is on the similar lines must also be held as without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed. Further, according to the learned Counsel as the regularisation of deviated constructions was already cancelled by the Commissioner, the structures already effected deviating the original plan are to be directed to be removed either by the owners of the building failing which the Corporation has to take action to remove or demolish such deviated portions of the structures.

In the case of Aditya Construction v. Secretary, HMA and UD Dept. (supra), a Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the issue as to the construction of a multi-storied building, contravening and deviating the sanctioned plan and the building bye-laws. When the builder sought for a direction to the Government for granting exemption, this Court held that, "On scrutiny of the relevant Rules, we find that there is no power at present under any of the above statutory provisions for the Government to grant any such exemption. This was brought to the notice of the State Government as the files moved up. It is unfortunate that in spite of the persistent reminders with reference to the relevant statutory provisions that the Government had no power to grant exemption and that the cases which were before the Government did not deserve any such exemption, the Government thought it fit to exercise a non-existing power to grant exemption. Petitioner may be right in its submission that it could or should also have been granted similar exemption. Unless we are certain that the Government has got power to grant exemption by virtue of any of the statutory provisions, it is not possible for us to issue the direction, which the Petitioner seeks. It is not as if this Court shall countenance the illegality committed by the Government in granting exemptions and direct the Government that it shall proceed and continue to pass such illegal orders in other cases as well. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is equitable and discretionary. That jurisdiction cannot be exercised for the purpose of compounding any illegality or for directing that such illegality shall be committed in other like cases also, because it was once committed.

19. Under the above circumstances, the first two writ petitions, filed questioning the cancellation orders in Permit Nos. 172/17/ 80 and 172/17/89, dated 26-6-1998, are dismissed.

20. Coming to the other two writ petitions filed by the neighbours seeking quashing of the G.O. Ms. No.289, dated 25-5-1998, as already a Division Bench of this Court quashed G.O. Ms. No. 419, dated 30th July, 1998, which was on the similar lines as that of G.O, Ms. No.289, for the same reasons for which G.O. Ms. No.419 was quashed holding that the Government has no power to issue such orders for regularisation of unauthorised and deviated constructions, the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No.289, dated 25-5-1998 is also quashed. Further, the Petitioners in these two writ petitions sought for a direction to the Corporation to demolish the deviated constructions. Therefore, the Corporation is directed to issue notices to the owners of the building for removal of the deviated and unauthorised constructions, within a period of three months from the date of such notice and if the owners of the building fail to comply the said notice the Corporation is directed to carry out the said action, at the cost of the owners of the building, within a further period of three months thereafter.