Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. The Supreme Court then took cognizance of the large number of illegal constructions made in the city of Cuttack in violation of the Master Plan and sanctioned plan and held:

Builders violate with impunity the sanctioned building plans and indulge in deviations much to the prejudice of the planned development of the city and at the peril of the occupants of the premises constructed or of the inhabitants of the city at large. Serious threat is posed to ecology and environment and, at the same time, the infrastructure consisting of water supply, sewerage and traffic movement facilities suffers unbearable burden and is often thrown out of gear. Unwary purchasers in search of roof over their heads and purchasing flats/apartments from builders, find themselves having fallen prey and become victims to the designs of unscrupulous builders. The builder conveniently walks away having pocketed the money leaving behind the unfortunate occupants to face the music in the event of unauthorised constructions being detected or exposed and threatened with demolition. Though the local authorities have the staff consisting of engineers and inspectors whose duty is to keep a watch on building activities and to promptly stop the illegal constructions or deviations coming up, they often fail in discharging their duty. Either they don't act or do not act promptly or do connive at such activities apparently for illegitimate considerations. If such activities are to stop some stringent actions are required to be taken by ruthlessly demolishing the illegal constructions and non-compoundable deviations. The unwary purchasers who shall be the sufferers must be adequately compensated by the builder. The arms of the law must stretch to catch hold of such unscrupulous builders. At the same time, in order to secure vigilant performance of duties, responsibility should be fixed on the officials whose duty it was to prevent unauthorised constructions, but who failed in doing so either by negligence or by connivance.

13. We have prefaced adjudication of the writ petition filed by the petitioners for quashing notice dated 15-6-2007 issued by the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation under Section 452(2) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') because, after perusing the averments contained in the affidavit of petitioner No. 1, V. Narasimham and hearing Sri Ganta Ramakrishna, we are convinced that the writ petition is wholly meritless and is liable to be dismissed summarily. Petitioner No. 1 claims to have purchased property bearing H. No. 1-2- 56/57 & 58, Domalguda, Hyderaba, from Sri Pingi Madhusudhana Reddy and others vide registered sale deed dated 1-3-1973. After demolishing the old construction, he applied for permission to construct new building. The competent authority of the then Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad granted permission for construction of parking and three floors. However, in utter violation of the sanctioned plan, petitioner No. 1 constructed fourth floor and pent house and also violated the Building Bye-laws, 1981 and made deviations.

17. Sri Ganta Ramakrishna, learned Counsel for the petitioners, argued that the notice impugned in the writ petition is liable to be quashed because exercise of power by the Commissioner under Section 452 of the Act is tainted by mala fides. He submitted that the Commissioner has initiated action against his clients at the instance of the neighbours who have been making complaints because of jealousy. Learned Counsel then submitted that petitioner No. 1 has constructed the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan and the minor deviations, if any, made cannot justify demolition of the entire structure more so because the suit for permanent injunction filed by him is pending in the civil court and the injunction order passed in I.A. No. 715 of 2005 is still operative.

We have considered the arguments/submissions of the learned Counsel, but have not felt impressed. Neither in his reply to notice dated 7-6-2007 nor in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, petitioner No. 1 has denied the fact that as per the sanctioned plan he could construct parking area with three floors, but he has constructed fourth floor and also made deviations in violation of the building bye-laws. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that the construction made by petitioner No. 1 is unauthorised. This being the position, we do not find any valid ground or justification to entertain the prayer for quashing the action initiated by the respondents for demolition of the unauthorised construction. It is trite to say that the constitutional remedies can be availed only by those who have respect for the law of the land and not to those like the petitioner who conduct themselves in violation of the laws enacted by the competent legislature and the rights of the fellow citizens.