Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner in this petition is the same as in Special Civil Application No.3245 of 2014 and even the premises is also the same, the respondent has opposed this petition also on same grounds and has relied on the affidavit in said other petition being Special Civil Application No.3245 of 2014.

4.1 From the reply affidavit filed in Special Civil Application No.3245 of 2014, which is filed by same petitioner in connection with same building, it has emerged that the petitioner had submitted an undertaking dated 31.8.2010 that they will not put up any construction in the common plot.

4.4 The relevant details as regards the unauthorized construction put-up by the petitioners which are borne out from paragraphs - 6 to 11, 13 and 14 of the aforesaid reply affidavit filed by the respondent No.3 in SCA No.3245 of 2014 (filed by same petitioner), read thus:-

"6. Adverting to the merits of the case, few dates are relevant to substantiate the controversy as regards the unauthorized development which has been undertaken by the petitioner. I respectfully say that the petitioner purchased the land vide an agreement to sale in the month of November 2009, followed by the registered sale deed executed on 7.8.2010 for land bearing survey No.829/paiki, sub-plot No.54/1/1 of final plot no.54/1, admeasuring 2372 sq. mtrs. The petitioner submitted an application seeking development permission for developing the aforesaid plot, exclusively for residential purpose. In this behalf, the petitioner also Page 5 submitted an undertaking dated 31.8.2010 inter-alia declaring that the petitioner will not carry out any construction in the common plot. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-I is a copy of the undertaking dated 31.8.2010 filed by the petitioner before the authorities along with the necessary plan.
(i) Hollow plinth (for parking purpose),
(ii) Ground floor, first floor and second floor each consisting of 14 residential units,
(iii) Stair cabin.

It is pertinent to note that as per the condition No.35 of the development permission, the petitioner was not supposed to effect any construction (i) in the common plot, (ii) in the open space including margin, and (iii) beyond the control building line. However, the petitioner in contravention of the development permission has effected construction in the common plot, has not left any margin and constructed shops in hollow plinth area reserved for parking.

(i) Constructed one whole block in common plot, consisting of hollow plinth, ground floor, first floor and second floor,
(ii) Constructed shops in the frontage of the main road in the hollow plinth in Block-A, sanctioned for parking space, and
(iii) left zero metre side-margin, thereby encroaching upon 12 metre T.P. Road. (The petitioner, as per the development permission, was obliged to leave 3 metre side margin) Annexed hereto and collectively marked as Annexure-III (colly.) are the copies of the photographs of the frontage and of the 12 metre T.P. Road side along with the map.