Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(f) Grant costs including special costs in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The petitioner is a member of the Tejas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Part I, ('The Society', for short) and is occupying Sub-Plot Unit No:48 of the said Society. The petitioner gave an application-cum-notice to the respondent Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 18-09-2010, pointing out that the residents of about 44 tenements have committed various illegalities and put up unauthorized constructions. It was also pointed out that the common Plot of the Society had been encroached upon, there was unauthorized construction in the margin land and common roads and violations of the Floor Space Index, (FSI). According to the petitioner, due to his efforts, action was initiated by the respondent Corporation against the errant members of the Society. Proceedings have been initiated against the concerned persons who have been directed to remove the illegal constructions. However, according to the petitioner, the action taken is only on paper, therefore, he was constrained to issue four legal notices dated 13/07/2011, 07/10/2011, 15/11/2011 and 10/01/2012 to the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that the action taken by the respondents against the members of the Society who have put up illegal constructions is not satisfactory, as the officers of the respondent Corporation are not implementing the notices issued by them and are not taking steps to demolish the unauthorised constructions. Hence, the petition.

3.1 It was further contended that as a member of the Society, the petitioner has a right to ensure that the common plot, roads and facilities are preserved and the Society becomes more livable and does not get congested due to illegal constructions. That, if unauthorized constructions are permitted to come up, it will create a ghetto-like situation that is not conducive for peaceful living in the Society. It is next contended that by encroaching on the common plot, functions such as marriages and religious functions cannot be held by the other residents of the Society. The right to life of the petitioner, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has been affected. That, the petitioner has a right to use and occupy the common plot as per the judgment of this Court in H.C.Nanalal v. V.G.Vaghela, 2010(1)GLH 710. That no proper answer has been given to the petitioner to his application made under the Right to Information Act, regarding the time frame in which the illegal constructions will be demolished, which infringes the right to know of the petitioner, as held by the Supreme Court in Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India, (1997) 4 SCC 306. Lastly, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Officers of the respondent Corporation have failed in the performance of their duties, therefore, a writ of mandamus is required to be issued to them, as held by the Supreme Court in Secretary, Cannanore District Muslim Educational Association v. State of Kerala, (2010) 6 SCC 373.

10. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the common plot in any residential Society is meant for the common use and common purposes of all members of the Society. The principles of law enunciated in the judgment in the case of H.C.Nanalal v. V.G.Vaghela (Supra), have been pressed into service, in this regard. In that case, the Society had unanimously resolved to sell the common plot, which is not the case in the present petition. The case of the petitioner is that his use of the common plot, as a member of the Society, is being hindered by the alleged unauthorized constructions, therefore, his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated. There is no material on record to indicate to what extent the common plot has been encroached upon, and whether it has been rendered absolutely unusable, or not. As already stated hereinabove, the petitioner has not substantiated how, and to what extent, his right to life has been adversely affected.