Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

42. Now I come to the cases of the petitioners who were denied occupation certificates notwithstanding the fact that the buildings in question were constructed and completed in accordance with the sanctioned plans. The provisions for granting occupation certificate are found in S. 310 of the Act. It should be noticed in these cases, that the Corporation is not relying on any complaints from the public or any structural defects or any complaint from the neighbours. It is not the case of the Corporation that the sanctioned plans were obtained by playing fraud on the officials of the Corporation or dishonesty on the part of the officials of the Corporation. In the recent case of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No..634 of 1989 (reported in AIR 1989 SC 860), the Supreme Court in reversal of the decision of this Court observed as follows: (Para 20) "We have perused the records and considered the arguments on both sides. We are not satisfied that, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court were justified in permitting and much less directing the demolition of the 6th floor. On the facts found, there is neither justice nor equity in authorising the demolition. The total site area being 15517 sq. ft. as found by the High Court, and the permissible FAR in relation to the site area being 38792 sq. ft., as against the determined area of 45974 sq. ft., the excess FAR is only 7182 sq. ft. When an area of 4500 sq.ft. occupied by the school is excluded from the excess area of 7182 sq. ft. by reason of the school having vested in the Government upon the completion of the building, the actual excess area in the possession and enjoyment of the appellant is only 2682 sq. ft. The permissible limit of compounding being 5 per cent of the permissible FAR, which works out to 1940 sq. ft., the actual area, of deviation outside the permissible compounding limit seems to be not larger than 742 sq. ft. In the circumstances, in the light of what the Commissioner says about the practice of the Corporation in regard to the commencement certificate and in the absence of any evidence of public safety being in any manner endangered or the public or a section of the public being in any manner inconvenienced by reason of the construction of the building, whatever may be the personal grievance of the 1st respondent, the High Court was not justified, at the instance of the 1st respondent claiming himself to be a champion of the public cause, in ordering the demolition of any part of the building, particularly when there is no evidence whatsoever of dishonesty or fraud or negligence on the part of the builder."

In these eases, in the issue of occupation certificates no public interest is involved; no structural defects are brought to the notice of this Court; the builders have satisfied the Corporation on this aspect by producing the necessary technical reports from the approved examiners, viz., Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, in some cases, and from other approved examiners in other cases. There are no complaints from the neighbours about their right to privacy. But the right to enjoyment of the petitioners' property is curtailed only on the ground that the plans in question are violative of the Zonal Regulations and Building Bye-laws. Such a stand of the Corporation does not satisfy the requirements of S. 505 of the Act and also S. 310 of the Act. Unless the Corporation specifically points out the illegality to the, builders or the promoters as the case may be within a reasonable time and invite them to set right those illegalities or violations committed by them, it is not open to the Corporation to bestir itself now and say that the buildings are violative of the Zonal Regulations and Building Bye-laws. In my view, such a stand is arbitrary and opposed to fairplay in action.