Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"7.4 Deviations during Construction­If during the construction of a building any substantial departure from the sanctioned plan is intended to be made by way of internal alternations or external additions, sanction of the Authority shall be obtained. The revised plan showing the deviations shall be submitted and the procedure laid down for the original plan heretofore shall apply to all such amended plans."

......................

"(ii) Deviation of the building Bye­laws other than as specified in (A)(Non­Compoundable) Deviation upto the maximum extent of 10% from the maximum/ minimum prescribed limit (as prescribed by the building bye­laws) shall be compounded at the following rates:­ .............................
(l) Partitions walls provided without sanction at any floor if the same are not infringing upon the provisions of any other bye­ laws............. Rs 15 per sq.m. of the surface area of the wall i.e. (length X height)."

31. PW10 deposed that during the course of investigation, on the request of CBI to Superintendent Engineer,(Building) HQ, MCD Town Hall, Delhi a team was constituted comprising of Jagdish Dhyani (PW5), M.R Mittal, Sher Singh (PW7) and A.K Mittal for verifying the status of the building and as to whether there was any deviation in the building constructed and the sanction plan; Inspector Yashpal Singh (PW10) visited the site alongwith the inspecting team on 22/05/2009; the report Ex PW5/D (D­11) was filed by inspecting team.

46. As per BBL no. 7.4, the sanction of MCD was to be obtained for such deviations and substantial departure from the RC No. 3(E)/2009/CBI/EOU­VII/ND 35/69 CBI vs Virender Kumar Khosla etc. sanctioned plan during the construction of the building and revised plan showing such deviations was to be submitted and the procedure laid down for the original plan was to be followed for amended plans. Admittedly, no revised plan showing such deviations was ever submitted to MCD by A­1 along with or without his son co­owner Yogesh Khosla as well as by M/s Instyle Motel Services Pvt Ltd. Since A­1 was co­owner of the property in question in the revenue records of the property, as per PW8 and he being the person who submitted and obtained the sanctioned plans, so as per BBL no 7.1, A­1 was fully responsible for carrying out the works in accordance with the requirements of the bye­laws. A­1 cannot shirk from his such responsibility on mere plea of having entrusted such construction work to architect DW1, Structural Engineer, Contractor and others. As per BBL no. 7.1, the owner of said building was fully responsible to carry out the work in accordance with the requirements of the bye­laws. BBL no. 6.2.9 enjoined accompanying of ownership documents like Lease Deed, Sale Deed etc., site plan with the application for building permit. In the case where there was no lease deed executed then such applicant was to furnish the no objection certificate from the competent authority. As per BBL no. 7.5.2, it is the owner who is enjoined to submit a notice of completion of the building to the Authority regarding completion of the work described in the building permit. Admittedly, A­ 1 and his son Yogesh Khosla jointly as co­owners or severally did not submit a notice of completion of the building to the Authority RC No. 3(E)/2009/CBI/EOU­VII/ND 36/69 CBI vs Virender Kumar Khosla etc. regarding completion of the work described in the building permit. Annexing photocopy of Memorandum of Understanding, elicited above of M/s Instyle Motel Services Pvt Ltd amongst documents Ex DW1/A (colly), as Director of said company, A­1 replied to the notice Ex PW10/DX of MCD, later to depositing of charges of Rs. 3472/­ for obtaining completion certificate. A­1 cannot be absolved of his responsibility elicited above and embodied in BBL no. 7.1 nor can he take shelter behind the plea of the beneficiary of completion certificate being M/s Instyle Motel Services Pvt Ltd and not A­1 himself or that it was the said company who applied through A­1 for grant of completion certificate. There is no material on record proved that title of the property in question devolved upon M/s Instyle Motel Services Pvt Ltd at any point of time or said company being in any manner whatsoever entitled to apply and obtain the completion certificate from MCD. Non­ arraigning of M/s Instyle Motel Services Pvt Ltd as accused is not fatal to prosecution case. Facts and circumstances embodied in the cases of Keki Hormusji Gharda (Supra); S.K. Alagh (Supra); Aneeta Hada (Supra) and U.P. Pollution Control Board (Supra) are entirely different from the facts and circumstances of case in hand and are of no help to absolve the liability of A­1 fastened upon him by BBL no. 7.1. It also cannot be said that by obtaining completion certificate A­1 was not gainer or in other words the actual gainer was M/s Instyle Motel Services Pvt Ltd. Being co­owner in revenue records, being the person enjoying the licence fees from the licensee M/s Instyle Motel Services RC No. 3(E)/2009/CBI/EOU­VII/ND 37/69 CBI vs Virender Kumar Khosla etc. Pvt Ltd for running motel, for which completion certificate was a prerequisite, infact A­1 was the gainer, besides his son Yogesh Khosla, the other co­owner of the property in question. Ignorance of law cannot be made a bliss or a shield to evade criminal or civil liability by Graduate A­1, a Senior Citizen. Fact remains, even a layman can understand such blatant and apparent violations interse sanction plans and plans submitted to obtain completion certificate. Mere simultaneous glance of such plans makes vivid the blatant violations in construction of structures in premises in question from the plans sanctioned, elicited herein before.