1. - This writ petition was filed alleging construction of building by the respondent No. 5 in violation of Building Bye-laws.

2. The plot is consisting of 950 Sq. Meter, thus cannot be used for multistoried building. The permission was obtained by showing plot area to be 1030 Sq. Meter.

3. This writ petition was filed at the stage when civil work of the building was near completion, as is coming out from the photographs.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 submitted that the area of plot is 1030.6 Sq. Meter, though merger of plots was sought only for 950 Sq. Meters leaving the small portion of land for internal road, etc., but it belongs to respondent No. 5 itself. In view of above, there is no illegality in the approval of maps by the Municipal Council so as in raising construction.

5. The writ petition was deferred from time to time to find out as to how the permission was given to raise four storied building if plot area is less than 1000 sq. meters. From the record of Municipal Council, Sikar, it come out that the land belongs to the respondent No. 5 is more than 1000 Sq. Meter but merger of plot was sought only for 950 Sq. Meter, which does not permit a building with the height taken by the respondent No. 5.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that not only the maps were approved by the Municipal Council in violation of Bye-laws but even after the complaint by the petitioner, no heed was paid. On account of construction of building, the petitioner would not be in a position to use its land properly to the extent it is permissible under the Bye-laws. It was, however, admitted that if the entire land belonging to the respondent No. 5 is allowed to be used then it would be permissible to raise the building with the height already taken by the respondent/s.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 submitted that it is a case where they possess required area of land to raise building with the height already taken by them, hence, it may be small technical fault while seeking merger of plots leaving the area of internal road. They may accordingly be permitted to make an application to the Municipal Council, Sikar for merger of entire land in accordance to the rules and thereupon to permit them to complete the work as it would be lawful for the respondent to complete the work of the building with the height taken by them.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/s and the respondent No. 5 then came out with the settlement in the presence of the respective parties, during course of the argument/s on the following terms:

(i) The existing wall between the petitioner's land and the respondent No. 5 would be allowed to be used exclusively by the petitioner for his purposes and so far as the respondent No. 5 is concerned, he will erect a parallel and separate wall with the height of seven ft.

(ii) The respondent/s would remove the old room existing in the front of the land and which is touching the wall of the petitioner/s.

(iii) The respondent No. 5 would erect the transformer in his land and in such manner which may not obstruct the view of the petitioner's shop in any manner. The erection of transformer would be on the ground, may be adjacent to the wall to be erected by the respondent No. 5 with the height of seven ft.

9. With the aforesaid, both the parties submitted that they have no dispute now and respondent No. 5 may complete the work after doing the aforesaid. The writ petition could have been disposed of with the aforesaid but considering the fact that a direction can be made only as per the Bye laws of municipal Council, Sikar, thus apart from agreed terms between two parties, referred to above, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the respondent No. 5 to make an application for merger of entire land by moving an appropriate application as per the provisions of law. In case application is moved, the Municipal Council, Sikar would consider and take a decision in accordance to the provisions of