IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
Rajesh Jain – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Urban Development and Others – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 269 of 2016
Decided On : 31-01-2017
Illegal Construction - Alleged violation in the construction of a multi storied apartment - Memo No. 3023/Bha.Na.Ni - The Building Regulations, 2012 - The Right to Information Act, 2005
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to take action for the removal of illegal construction by respondents no. 8 and 9, alleging violation of the sanctioned plan in the year 2012. The matter was disposed off by an order stating deviation in set-back and directing removal of the illegal construction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court called upon the parties to agree to a fresh hearing with actual spot verification and measurement to be done in the presence of the parties. The parties agreed, and the writ petition was disposed off with directions for a fresh hearing and measurement by the respondent no. 3.
Issues: Alleged violation of sanctioned plan, lack of cooperation, and delay in the resolution of the matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for a fresh hearing and measurement to provide a fair opportunity to all concerned to present their case and for the respondent no. 3 to pass a reasoned order.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was directed to be resolved through a fresh hearing and measurement by the respondent no. 3. The appeal became infructuous, and the respondents were directed to file a petition for withdrawal of the appeal.
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has moved the Court for a direction to the respondents, especially respondent no. 3, to take action for removal of illegal construction by respondents no. 8 and 9, in light of his decision dated 17.08.2015 contained in Memo No. 3023/Bha.Na.Ni.
3. The matter relates to alleged violation in the construction of a multi storied apartment by the respondents no. 8 and 9 in the town of Bhagalpur. When the construction was in progress, the petitioner had approached the respondent no. 2 making complaint that the same was in violation of the sanctioned plan in the year 2012. Pursuant to the same, a notice was sent to the respondent no. 8 in which there was a direction to stop the illegal construction. Thereafter, finally, the matter, which was pending before the respondent no. 2, was disposed off by the order impugned in which it has been stated that on the right and rear side of the building, there was deviation in set-back and accordingly, it was directed that as per the law, the condonation fee may be given with regard to the portion for which condonation is permissible and the rest should be removed. When the same remained unimplemented, the petitioner moved this Court in the present writ application.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially when he had made the complaint in the year 2012, there was a direction to stop further construction and without taking permission to commence construction, the respondents nos. 8 and 9 have proceeded to complete the building. He submitted that the respondent Corporation was also not taking interest in the matter and, thus, he had to repeatedly file application under the Right to Information Act to know the status of his complaint. He submitted that even after the order has been passed for removal of the construction, which is illegal and beyond the condonable limit, the same has remained unimplemented on the ground.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection submitting that the petitioner has not moved the Court with clean hands for the reason that he is alleging that there is no permission/sanction for building the 5th floor but the sanction has already been accorded in the year 2012 and such fact was known to the petitioner as it was furnished by the Municipal Corporation on his application under the Right to Information Act. He further submitted that no notice was given to him prior to passing of the order impugned and, thus, he was denied the opportunity to explain his position and satisfy the authorities that he was acting within the four-corners of the law and whatever deviation may have been there, the same was either condonable or could be explained. He submitted that being aggrieved by the said order, he has moved before the Municipal Building Tribunal, South Division, Patna in Appeal No. 2 (S) of 2016, which is pending. He further submitted that the said appeal is not being heard as the Tribunal is lacking in quorum. He further submitted that he has land on the rear side which can be given to satisfy the requirement of set-back.
6. At this stage, the Court called upon the parties to take a stand as to whether, for the ends of justice, if a fresh hearing is given with actual spot verification and measurement to be done in the presence of the parties, they would be agreeable to a consent order. The parties have readily agreed for the same.
7. In view of the aforesaid, without taking cognizance or going into the merits, either on facts or law, the writ petition is disposed off in the following terms:
"The petitioner as well as the respondents nos. 8 and 9 will appear before the respondent no. 3 on 6th February, 2017, either personally or through their authorised representative. The respondent no. 3 shall fix a date for actual spot measurement of the premises in question. The date and time having been fixed, it would be open to the parties to be present an
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.