Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: setback area in Smt B S Latha vs Chief Officer on 9 February, 2024Matching Fragments
Setback area
In In Violation in
percentage
m2 'Sqf'
Setback area according to
the building bye-law
Ground floor
74.43 801.1
2 7
First floor 111.9 1205.
70 23
Setback area in the building
constructed Ground
floor-
Ground floor 20.82%
58.93 634.3
First floor First floor -
148.6 1600.
24.67%
6 16
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:5690
Setback violation
Ground floor 15.50 166.8
111.4
First floor 10.35 0
Built-up area
In In Violation in
percentage
m2 'Sqf'
Building measurement
according to the building
bye-law
Ground floor
111.3 1198.
3 34
First floor
73.80 794.3
Ground
Measurement of the floor-
building constructed 7.93%
Ground floor
120.1 1293.
6 39 First floor -
nil
First floor 30.43 327.5
violation
Ground floor 8.83 95.04
First floor nil nil
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:5690
Setback area In In Violation in percentage m2 'Sqf'
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:5690 Setback area according 1813.27 to the building bye-law 168.52 Setback area in the building constructed 59.56 640.86 64.65% Setback violation (168.52-59.56) 108.96 1172.41 Built-up area In In Violation in percentage m2 'Sqf' Building measurement according to the building bye-law 168.57 1813.81 (G.F + F.F) 147.14% Measurement of the building constructed 416.619 4482.82 (G.F + F.F + S.F) violation 248.04 2669.01
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:5690 14.3. It is therefore clear that there is a gross violation of the setback area committed by respondent No.2 and that this construction is not as per the plan sanction and/or the Building byelaws. It is however a point to be noted that the construction is of the year 2009. 14.4. It is subsequently in the year 2017, respondent No.2 put up the construction of the first, second and third floors. The third floor being demolished by respondent No.1, what remains to be considered is the validity and legality of first and second floors.
14.5. The aforesaid report would indicate that the violations in terms of the setbacks in the ground floor would continue for first and second floor also. Therefore on account of such violation, there are FAR violation on account of both the floors.
14.6. The construction of ground floor having occurred in the year 2009, if at all respondent
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:5690 No.2 wanted to put up construction above it in accordance with the law, an application for modification of the earlier plan would have to have been filed by respondent No.2, which would have been considered by the respondent No.1 by taking into account the plan sanction already granted in respect of the ground floor and also the construction made on the ground floor. For the purpose of approval of first and second floor, it would have been but necessary for the respondent No.2 to have removed all violations in respect of the ground floor, more particularly as regards the setback area and thereafter put-up construction on the balance area on the first and second floors. Instead of doing so, respondent No.2 has straightaway put up a construction on the walls of the ground floor, the ground floor walls being load bearing and not a column structure. Thus, the violation insofar as respondent No.2 is concerned with