Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit stating that by the time the writ petitioner filed his complaint on 4.6.2015, the respondent No. 7 had already completed the construction of the basement and had started construction of the first floor based on the NOC dated 15.2.2014. The respondent No. 2 acknowledged that on measurement of the land inside the boundary wall of the respondent No. 7 on southern and eastern side, minimal deviation was found and, accordingly, the letter dated 16.6.2015 was issued to correct the deviation. It is averred that southern side of the land of the respondent No. 7 is covered by land of Vineet Kumar Tibrewala, Bhagawati Devi Tibrewala and the petitioner. Vineet Kumar Tibrewala and Bhagawati Devi Tibrewala had submitted NOC to the Board in respect of the construction. In the southern side of the land of respondent No. 7, petitioner's land comprises of only 5% of the total length and if the measurement is taken from the edge of the boundary wall, which is 10' thick, there would be no deviation. In view of the order of this Court dated 07.12.2015, the land was again measured in presence of both the parties and when measured from the outside edge of the boundary wall of the respondent No. 7, deviation was found to be much lesser than given in the notice dated 16.6.2015. While taking measurement, a godown illegally constructed by the petitioner on the boundary wall of the respondent No. 7 was noticed. The Rules of 2014 was not brought into force and the NOC having been granted lawfully, could not be cancelled. It is averred that the Office Memorandum dated 21.11.2013 had not been implemented as the extant Act and Rules have not been amended. The allegation of granting of NOC on the date of application is denied and in view of minimal deviation, it is averred that the building cannot be demolished.

13. Mr. J. Handique, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, has abided by the stand taken in the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2. He has reiterated that there was only minimal deviation in the construction of the building.

14. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record.

15. The Municipal authorities owe a duty and obligation to ensure that there is no unauthorised construction. The petitioner's family is in the neighbourhood where the respondent No. 7 is making the construction and any unauthorised and illegal construction would invade their rights.

(iii) The respondent No. 2 will forthwith inform the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 the decision of the Deputy Director/Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning Department at Tezpur.

(iv) If the provisional NOC is held to be correctly issued by the Deputy Director/Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning Department at Tezpur, the respondent No. 2 will cause a notice to be served upon the petitioner and the respondent WP(C) 4022/2015 No. 7 within a period of five days from the date of receipt of the documents from the Deputy Director/Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning Department at Tezpur for the purpose of measurement of the land and building to find out as to whether there is any deviation in construction of the building.