Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Building deviation in Shri. J.M. Thangkhiew And Ors vs The State Of Meghalaya And Ors on 28 September, 2015Matching Fragments
This is an application for impleadment of the said 12(twelve) violators as respondents No. 5 to 16 in the connected PIL. Byelaw 7 of the Meghalaya Building Byelaws 2011 clearly provides action to be taken from the side of MUDA. For easy reference, Byelaw 7 is quoted herein under:
"7.DEVIATION DURING BUILDING CONSTRUCTION For any deviation from the sanctioned plan during stage of construction, permission of the Authority shall be obtained and if the construction is not according to the approved plan, the Authority has the power to stop the construction and if the permission holder fails to comply with the notice served by the authority, the Authority is empowered to cancel the building permission and start proceeding against the permission holder as per provisions of Meghalaya Town and Country Planning Act, 1973 as amended from time to time".
Respondent Sanctioned Floors at site Defense of the Observations of the No./ name of Floors concerned petitioner the Respondent Respondent Respondent G+3 G+5 Soft soil 2 additional floors illegally No. 5 Narayan resulting in the constructed.
Prasad basement therein.
Jhunjhunwala Building less
than 15 meters within
permissibility of
clause 2.28 of Bye
laws.
Basement and
mezzanine floor to be
used for parking.
No certificate of
earthquake engineer
is attached and Bye
Laws is silent about
Earthquake proof
building. Report is not
conclusive.
Respondent G+3 G+5 Submitted Quinton Road side six
No. 6 Nilesh revised building floors. Thana Road side
Tibrewala drawing plan with four floors that 2 floors.
additional floor. Hence violation of 2 floors
Ground floor from Quinton road.
used for parking as
such additional 1 floor
permitted.
Height of
building 15 meters
excluding basement.
(actual height 19
meters)
Structural
deviations due to hilly
topography (bye laws
8 (g))
Respondent G+3 G+4 Height of Extra basement.
No.7 building is 14.40
Satyabrata meter (less than 15 Application for filing up the
Baidya meter) same filed.
Additional floor
(height of 2.4 meters)
constructed to bring
ground floor at one
plain.
Respondent G+3 G+4 Height of Extra basement.
No. 8. Ajit Das building is 14.50
Gupta meter (less than 15 Application for filling up
meters) the same filed.
Additional floor
(height of 2.5 meters)
construed to bring
ground floor at one
plain.
Respondent G+3 G+4 Slab to be used Slab on some panels have
th
No.9 Bidur for lift, water been casted over the 4
Das purification and not floor.
for residential
purpose. Hence violation.
Height of
building (12 meters) Statement made in Court
EXCLUDING ground willing to dismantle the
floor (parking floor) same
Obtained
Seismic certificate.
(not attached)
Respondent G+3 G+4 MBBL permit Application filed seeking of
No. 10. Uday G+3 with a height of the Court to fill up the
N. Shukla 15 meters ground floor below the
EXCLUDING road level and raise
basement. additional floor.
Structural
deviations due to hilly
topography (bye law 8
(g)
Ground floor
used for parking as
such additional 1 floor
permitted.
Respondent G+3 G+4 Height of Application filed for filling
No.11 Raj building is 14.35 up basement.
Kumari Sinha meters (less than 15
meter)
Additional floor
(height of 2.35
meters) constructed
to bring ground floor
at one plain.
Respondent Block Block A, A building can Violation by 3 (three)
No. 12 M/S A, B, B, have 7 distinct floors floors. Sealed at 3 point
Mentok Ri- D=G+3 D=G+4 Slope difference under orders of this
Project Pvt. Block Block of 22 meters Hon'ble Court.
Ltd C= C=G+4+ Constructed in
G+3 + non Raft Slab foundations
non habitual which required the
habitua floor owner to dig 1.5
l floor meters thus additional
Block E Block E area.
& F= &F Area less than 3
STP + =STP + meter not intended to
G+ 3 two be used. Earth filling
Letter floors. to be done (para x)
for MUDA bye-law
revised 40 permits G+4
building Admitting in para
plan (xi) that 2 floors
filed addition but both
and inaccessible .
sanctio Soil rest carried out
n given as per load bearing
for G+4 capacity (para b
internal page 15)
Respondent G+4 G+5 Initial G+4 Permission beyond
No. 13. Shri permission given permissible limits.
Maruf Elahi (internal page 8) 1 additional floor has been
1 more floor constructed.
sanctioned by revised
plan (internal page15)
because of
topography of land.
Respondent G+3 G+4 Within the 1 additional floor beyond
No. 14. Smti permissible height of what was permitted
Beroline 19 meters including constructed.
Khonhshei parking floor.
Hilly topography
Respondent G+3 G+5 First block 9.9 Violation by 2 (two) floors.
No. 15. Smti meter + parking 3.3 Basement converted into
Mohendro meters two additional floor by
Rapsang Second block casting slab.
9.9 meters + parking
4.95
The parking was
split into 2.25+2.70
not affecting overall
height
Respondent G+4 G+4 at road Permission Permission
No. 16 Smti side and G+5 granted by MUDA beyond
Saini Pala at rear side after full filling all permissible limits.
formalities. Extra basement
Plan of constructed.
basement already Statement made
included in the plan willing to fill up
submitted to MUDA. basement.
Building
constructed stands at
60 ft equivalent to
18.288 Mtrs as such
within permissible
limits.
Respondent G+4 G+3 A building can Permission of
No. 17. Sanjib have 7 distinct floors MUDA beyond
Das Sanction of permissible limits.
original building plan Encroachment on
vide memo dated drain side and
10.10.2012 survey
Submitted recommended.
revised building plan Changes to the
for approval for G+3 use of the floors
(4 floors) with a total and deviations in
height of 11.90 Mtrs the construction
and as such not a without approval
high-rise. from MUDA
Being in Seismic
Zone does not mean
that multi-storied
buildings cannot be
constructed.
Has followed
due procedures and
norms.
Building
constructed with
seismological
considerations.
No scientific
evidence that building
more than 4 storeys
cannot be
constructed.
Respondent B, G+4 B, G+4 A building can Permission of
No. 18. have 7 distinct MUDA beyond
Machin Fincon floors permissible limits
Pvt. Ltd. Applied for 5 and as such
floors (g, G+1, violation by two
G+2, G+3, and floors.
G+4) with a total
height of 18.35
Mtrs.
In the process of
giving a revised
building plan,
original plan for
showroom on
ground floor,
now to be
converted into
covered parking.
Conformity with
FAR,
MUDA restricted
height to G+3
with height of 15
Mtrs. And for the
purpose a
basement and
ground floor
parking are
excluded.
Respondent G+5 G+3 Construction is Permission of
No. 19. being done in MUDA beyond
Kenneth M. accordance with permissible limits.
Lyngdoh the permission
granted by
MUDA
permission
dated
30.01.2014
BIS standards
followed.
Committee had
not found
anything
irregular, illegal
and as such no
reason why
should remain a
party.
Building
constructed with
latest
technology.
No reason to
doubt efficiency
of MUDA
Respondent G+4 in the G+4 in the Floors and a Permission of
No. 20. Sanjay Rear Block Rear Block higher MUDA beyond
Jhunjhunwalla and G+5 in and G+3 in permission as permissible limits.
the Front the Front per clause 41 of Entry to fourth
Block. Block the MBBL as floor at the rear
such a building side sealed as per
can have upto a directions of this
maximumof 10 Hon'ble Court
floors with a
height of 27
Mtrs.
Due to hilly
topography
building plan
deviate
Building has
been
constructed as
per MUDA
sanctioned plan
Respondent G+5 Nil Permission of
No.21. MUDA beyond
Modrick permissible limits.
Nongkynrih
Respondent B, G+4 B, G+3 A building can Permission of
No.22 Bavin have 7 distinct MUDA beyond
Deren floors. permissible limits.
Marbaniang Approval is Hence violation by
given for ground two floors.
+ 4 floors for
commercial use,
total height of
17.10 Mtrs.
Till now carried
out work only for
basement floor
and G+3 floors.
Seismic activity
as such
buildings
constructed as
per standards
No scientific
evidence that
buildings upto 4
storeys are less
susceptible to
earthquakes.
For height of
floors basement
and ground floor
parking are
excluded.
Respondent G+5 G+5 Permission Permission of
No. 23 dated MUDA beyond
Lamboklang 19.03.2012 permissible limits.
Mylliemngap granted for Violation by two
Ground plus 5 floors.
(five) floors only
for the Ground
Floor= Parking,
st
1 Floor to Fifth
Floor=
Apartmental
use.
Engaged
registered
architect/technic
al personnel and
entire
construction
erected under
active
supervision.
No point of time
has ever
violated the
Meghalaya
Building Bye
Laws, 2011
Respondent B, G+4 G+1 Permission Permission of
No.24 Dr dated 8.05.2013 MUDA beyond
(Mrs) T.A. granted for permissible limits.
Sohkhlet Basement,
ground plus 4
floors only for :
(i) Basement
and ground
floor= Parking
st nd rd
(ii) 1 , 2 , 3
th
and 4
floor=Hall use
Building plan
prepared by
licensed
architect and
prepared with
seismic
considerations
as per IS code.
Zone V does not
automatically
urge that multi
storeyed
buildings or high
rise buildings
should not be
allowed. The
building so
constructed
should conform
to structural
engineering
criteria in
seismic zone- V
Building more
than 4 storeys
does not imply
that in the event
of an earthquake
there is danger
of damage and
risk to human
life.
Respondent B, G+3 B, G+3 Permission Permission of
No.25 Allan granted MUDA beyond
Wood Swer 3.04.2013 for permissible limits.
basement and
ground plus 3
floors (Total 5
floors)
Construction
completed
strictly in terms
of the sanction
plan.
Building
constructed as
commercial
complex, to
provide parking
facilities.
Respondent G+3 G+3 Permission The ground floor
No.26 dated at the rear side of
Secretary, 27.09.2007 the building
Islamia granted for (a) appears to be not
Secondary basement fit for habitation
School Floor= and needs to be
educational use discarded by filling
+ lift spaces, (b) it as its floor level
ground seems to be lower
Floor=ramp & than the bed level
parking space + of the drain
classroom + adjoining it.
Electrical room + The alignment of
water closets + the classrooms
lift spaces etc (c) are not
st
1 Floor satisfactory and fit
=commercial + for an educational
educational use institution as no
+ water closets natural ventilation
+ lift spaces (d) and lighting is
nd
2 Floor provided to each
=educational classroom.
rd
use (e) 3 Floor There is major
= office. deviation from the
Thereafter the approved
basement floor drawings
was cancelled. The plot coverage
No classroom is has increased and
being housed in some panels of
the lower floor at slab at the first
the basement floor level of the
and on the rear side are to be
ground floor. dismantled.
Basement and OPEN SPACE for
ground floor is children not
meant for available.
parking of Building not fit for
vehicles. school.
Classrooms are
first floor
onwards with
proper
ventilation and
hygiene.
The
arrangement of
classrooms at
present has
been made
temporarily to
facilitate ongoing
construction.
Respondent G+4 G+4 Name has been Permission MUDA
No. 27 P. wrongly beyond
Dkhar mentioned as permissible limits.
Shri P. Dkhar All the floors have
infact the been occupied for
building belongs residential use
to Smti. although MUDA
Indashisha has not issued the
Kharduit who Occupancy
purchased the Certificate.
same with one
floor constructed
.
Permission
dated
25.06.2012
given to Smti.
Fidelia
Kharkongar
(vendor)
The instant PIL
do not meet the
requirement of
pleadings.
Respondent G+5 G+5 Permission Permission of
No. 28 dated MUDA beyond
Nicholas 28.11.2007 permissible limits.
Wahlang granted for
Ground + 3
(three) floors for
hotel building in
favor of Smti.
Meriata
Wahlang.
Thereafter
permission
dated
16.03.2012
granted for (i)
th
extension of 4
th
and 5 Floor
Commercial
(Hotel) and
alteration of the
approved G+3
commercial
(Hotel) building.
Change of use
from Office cum
residential to
commercial
(Hotel).
Sd/-
Advocate for petitioner"
Respondent No.5-Shri.Narayan Prasad Jhunjhunwala
18. The Chart mentioned above, indicates that MUDA granted permission to the respondent No.5-Shri.Narayan Prasad Jhunjhunwala for construction of building up to G+3 but the respondent No.5-Shri.Narayan Prasad Jhunjhunwala had constructed upto G+5. Therefore, the two additional floors had been constructed illegally. The only defence taken by the respondent No.3-MUDA is that under Byelaw 2.28, the building above 4 (four) storeys or building rising 15 mts or more is permissible. But the Byelaw 2.28 cannot be read in isolation with Byelaw 18, Byelaw 30 & Table-VI, Byelaw 40 & Table-VIII and Byelaw 43. The respondent No.5 in his affidavit-in-opposition vide para 4 clearly admitted that the approval thereof was granted for G+3 floors for commercial use and the building had been constructed as per building plan except some deviation (Byelaw 18 does not allow) which had occurred due to the reason that the upper layer of the soil was found to be very soft which had forced him (respondent No.5) to place the foundation of the building in depth, resulting a basement emerged therein and the same has been treated by the Enquiry Committee ground floor and ground floor one. Under the Byelaws, 2011, there cannot be two ground floors such as ground floor and ground floor one. As per the permission granted by the MUDA, the respondent No.5 was never granted permission to construct the basement. Further in his affidavit-in-opposition stated that the Enquiry Committee during the course of inspection found that 2 (two) additional floors had been constructed and the same has been treated as violation, however, it was not the intention of the respondent No.5 to construct the building in violation of Byelaws known as "the Meghalaya Building Byelaws, 2011".
Therefore, the above additional floors i.e. G+4 and G+5 above the permissible floors i.e. G+3 are illegal and are to be demolished.
Respondent No.6-Shri.Nilesh Tiberwal
19. The Chart mentioned above, indicates that MUDA granted permission to the respondent No.6-Shri.Nilesh Tiberwal for construction of building up to G+3 but the respondent No.6-Shri.Nilesh Tiberwal had added 2 (two) more additional floors. The respondent No.6 in his affidavit-in-opposition stated that the MUDA granted permission for construction of building only for G+3. Shillong being a hilly area having hilly topography, building construction is a tough challenge. Because of the hilly topography, laying of foundation is a herculean task and very often results in some deviations from the sanctioned building plan. Further due to earth-cutting to find hard soil for laying the building foundation, extra excavations (which are not permissible under Byelaw 18) are required to be made which sometimes requires special architectural treatment in the form of basement/foundation to give a strong foundation to the building. Further, due to hilly topography, many a times buildings have to be constructed at split-levels, where the levels of different floors one portion of building are different from the other portion of the building. After, the building permission was granted to the respondent No.6, he commenced the construction work. While the construction work was going on, the officials of MUDA periodically visited the construction site. By August, 2013, the respondent No.6 had already completed construction of structural frame. At that stage, the respondent No.6, who had obtained the building permission for hotel building changed the idea and decided to have a commercial-cum-residential building. Accordingly, the respondent No.6 submitted a letter dated 15.10.2013 to the Town Planning Officer, MUDA stating that he (respondent No.6) intends to change the use of the building from hotel to commercial-cum-residential. Further the respondent No.6 stated that he submitted a revised building drawing plan with an additional floor for approval. This was in view of the fact that under Byelaws, 2011, buildings with G+3 floors are permitted and also in case of ground floor parking, an additional floor may be permitted. It is clear from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.6 that the MUDA had not granted permission for constructing of 2 (two) additional floors on the request of the respondent No.6 to construct 2 (two) additional floors. Inspite of knowing clearly that the MUDA had not granted permission to construct 2 (two) additional floors, the respondent No.6 constructed 2 (two) additional floors i.e. G+4 and G+5. The permit issued by the MUDA for construction was only G+3 for commercial use (hotel) vide letter dated 11.05.2013, which reads as follows:-