Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is a deviation and if the deviation could not be set right, the building will have to be demolished.

5. The Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board/1st respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that the 2nd respondent had put up construction deviating from the sanctioned original plan and action had been initiated against him as regards the same. Notice dated 17.06.2015 under Section 247 of the Act for unauthorised construction;notice dated 06.10.2015 under Section 248(1) of the said Act and notice dated 30.11.2015 under Section 320 of the said Act to remove unauthorised construction were issued and the appeal filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 340 of the Act against the notice dated 30.11.2015 was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 18.08.2017. Consequent to the dismissal of the appeal, notice dated 04.12.2017 was issued to the 2nd respondent to vacate the said premises and to remove/demolish the 6\16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos. 29398 of 2017 & 3345 of 2018 unauthorised construction/deviation. However, the 1st respondent would state that the task could not be completed for want of police assistance and protection. The 1st respondent would state that when Section 315 of the Act provides for mandatory assistance of police officers to the officers of the Cantonment Board to carry out its statutory duties, in spite of repeated requests made, police protection/assistance was not extended to fulfill its statutory duty. In this regard, learned counsel for the 1 st respondent relied on the decision of this Court in P. Mohan V. The Chief Executive Officer, Officer of the Cantonment Board, North Parade Rod, St. Thoms Mount, Chennai 600 016 and 5 others (2017 SCC OnLine Mad 21105), wherein, under similar circumstances, while ordering removal of encroachment/demolition of unauthorised construction, taking note of the Section 315 of the Act, this Court had directed necessary police assistance to be rendered for eviction of unauthorised occupants.

7. Heard the parties and perused the records.

8. In paragraph No.3 of the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, the extent sanctioned for construction of ground floor and first floor and the extent of deviation from the sanctioned building plan have been tabulated and the same is reproduced hereunder:

Floor Extent sanctioned as per Extent of deviation from building plan sanctioned building plan Ground Floor 969 sq.ft 483 sq.ft First Floor 969 sq.ft 483 sq.ft Second Floor No sanction 150 sq.ft Total 1938 sq.ft 1116 sq.ft Thus, it is evident that there has been deviation in the ground floor and first floor to an extent of 483 sq.ft each and in the second floor, the 2 nd respondent has raised construction to an extent 150 sq. ft. without any sanction. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the permissible FSI (Floor Space Index) is one whereas the 2nd respondent has made construction for 1.5 FSI. The Appellate Authority, while dismissing the appeal, has given 8\16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos. 29398 of 2017 & 3345 of 2018 a finding that the 2nd respondent has put up construction in gross violation of the sanctioned plan and the relevant portion of the order passed by the Appellate Authority is extracted hereunder:
“6. After hearing both the Appellant as well as the Respondent, written submissions made by both the Appellant and the Respondent have been analyzed. The Appellant has made excess construction to the sanctioned building plan and thus deviation is made to the same. The Appellant should not have indulged in gross violation of the sanctioned plan and construction of excess built up area. The grounds made by the Appellant that other persons in the Cantonment have also made the construction in the same manner and so he did cannot be the ground for justifying his appeal for permitting the unauthorised construction. The Appellant's allegation that the Board have issued the notice to the Appellant is baseless and not true as this Appellate Authority itself has heard over 30 appeals in the past one year. Hence the appeal is rejected.” From the operative portion of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, extracted supra, it is very clear that the 2nd respondent has committed major violation of the sanctioned plan and raised construction to 9\16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos. 29398 of 2017 & 3345 of 2018 an extent of 969 sq.ft. in the ground floor as well as in the first floor thereby deviating to an extent 483 sq.ft in each of the floors apart from construction of 150 sq.ft in the second floor without getting any approval.