Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15.The Learned Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 3 refers to the opinion of the Experts (M/s.TDBD Engineering Works, Yamuna Nagar), who provided the Jacking System, had expressed, through their letter dated 05.04.2015 as follows:

... Now we can assure that the building is safe from any further sinking and failing. However, we are not recommending for safety living inside the building.

16.The Learned Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 3 submits that in the present case, the five storied residential flats building was constructed deviating from the approved plan and structurally the building is unsafe and endangering the neighbouring buildings and human life. Indeed, it is the plea of the Respondents 1 to 3 that in terms of the ingredients of Clause 22(6) of the Puducherry Building Bye-Laws and Zoning Regulations, 2012, a demolition notice was served to the Petitioners with a direction to demolish the building immediately without causing damage to the adjoining structures and to the general public vide No.949/PPA/Z (SB-2)/2015 dated 01.04.2015.

20.The Learned Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 3 contends that the 1st Respondent/Puducherry Planning Authority started the demolition of the building at 11.00 a.m. on 05.04.2015 and suspended the activities in the evening at 5.50 p.m. and that the demolition work was resumed on 06.04.2015 till this Court had ordered to keep off the hands of the Authority from demolishing the building.

21.The Learned Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 3 strenuously submits that the Petitioners had constructed the five storied residential flats building by deviating from the approved building plan issued by the Authority through Permit No.PPA/421/949/Z(SB/2)/2013-14 dated 03.04.2014. For better and fuller appreciation of the deviations from the approved plan, the details are mentioned as under:

22.The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 4 to 6 submits that the Petitioners had constructed the five storied residential flats building by deviating from the approved plan and violated the provision of the Puducherry Building Bye-Laws and Zoning Regulations, 2012. Further, it is the stand of the Respondents 4 to 6 that some of the columns shown in the structural design have not been constructed and further they observed that two columns on the south west corner had developed cracks also middle column exhibit excessive damage and likely to collapse and the building poses danger to the adjacent buildings and occupants in the neighbourhood. Besides these, the Statutory Authority had declared the building as 'unsafe' for occupants and other neighbours and its building and therefore, it is necessary to demolish the illegal constructions which are a source of danger to the society and public at large.

27. The above judgments would show that only such deviation deserve to be condoned as are bonafide or are attributable to some understanding or are such deviations as where the benefit gained by demolition would be far less than the advantage suffered. That apart, if the deviations are grave and serious breach of the licencing provisions or building regulations, such deviations cannot be condoned and the buildings should be demolished.
(d)In the decision of this Court in Salahudeen Babu V. P.T.Prabhakar and others, (2006) 4 MLJ 22 (DB), it is observed as follows: