Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. As per the case of the prosecution there was unauthorized construction and therefore same was booked and after giving necessary notice property was sealed and after some days, said sealed was found broken. R. A. Goel, Junior Engineer, MCD, Delhi, has deposed that at property in question unauthorized construction was done so he booked the same on 08.05.1998 and thereafter, show cause notices were issued and pasted at the site but no body turned up and thereafter on 26.05.1998, demolishing order was passed on his report by S. Kumarswamy. He has further deposed on 15.05.1998, he had gone at Page no. 4 of 9 St. vs. Kishan Kumar; FIR No. 8/1998 property in question but owner of the building was not available, thereafter, on 26.05.1998, he got the property in question sealed with the help of STF Staff. In this regard, complainant S. Kumarswamy (PW8) has deposed that the property was sealed on account of variation against sanctioned building plan. As per the witnesses, the said premises was sealed as the building plan was deviated from Sanctioned Plan. Hence, as per the case of prosecution, building plan was deviated from Sanctioned Plan. Prosecution has not proved the sanctioned plan of the said building to prove the deviation, which were allegedly made in the said building. Without proving the sanction plan of the building, the deviation, if any, in the said building cannot be proved.