The court affirmed the authority of the Municipal Commissioner to regularize construction and condemned the complainant's repeated legal challenges as an abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Roshan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Since in both the writ petitions, order dated 27th May, 2022 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 06 of 2018 by Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Regional Development Authority (for short ‘RRDA’) is under challenge, same were heard together and being disposed of by this common Judgment.

3. At the outset, it may be noted that writ applications were earlier listed on 28th November, 2024 and on the said date, arguments were advanced by the parties in W.P.(C) No. 2671 of 2022, but counsel for Respondent No.5, Mr. Shambhu Nath Singh did not appear and since writ petitions were analogous, Judgment was reserved. However, after Judgment was reserved, Mr. Shambhu Nath Singh appeared before this court and requested that he may be granted opportunity to advance his arguments as he could not appear due to medical emergency and, accordingly, on his request, although Judgment was reserved in both the writ petitions, the matter was again posted on 29th November, 2024. However, the matter could not be taken up that day.

Subsequently, the matter was listed on 03.12.2024 upon mentioning, but counsel for the respondent No.5 in W.P.(C) No. 2671/2022 and writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2830 of 2022, namely, Mr. Shambhu Nath Singh did not appear. On request of all the parties present, the Court proceeded to hear the matter on the basis of the pleadings in respective writ petitions and judgment was reserved by this Court on 3rd December, 2024.

4. Writ Petitioner-Sanjay Vidrohi @ Sanjay Kumar Vidrohi in W.P.(C) No. 2671 of 2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘co-resident’) and Writ Petitioner-Har Narayan Lakhotia in W.P.(C) No. 2830 of 2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Complainant’) are both owners of the property in Chandralok Apartment which has been constructed by Respondent-Builder namely, M/s. Aroma Construction Private Limited.

5. From the pleadings, it appears that both the writ petitioners, being neighbours, are not having good relation with each other, which led to series of litigations between them.

6. The Builder-M/s. Aroma Construction Private Limited initially got its Building Plan sanctioned by Respondent-RRDA vide B.C. Case No. 359/96 and at the stage of making construction, certain additional area was constructed within the permissible deviation limit of relevant building bylaws and, accordingly, an application for revised sanction of map for post facto approval of additional construction was made by the Builder before RRDA, which was registered as BC Case No. 102 of 2007. It is not in dispute that after payment of regularization fee of Rs. 1,52,140/-, additional construction was regularized by RRDA.

However, it was the case of Respondent No.5 in W.P.(C) No. 2671 of 2022 and Writ Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2830 of 2022, namely Har Narayan Lakhotia that additional construction made by the Builder was sanctioned by officials of RRDA in collusion with the Builder and, accordingly, Complainant filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before this Court being W.P. (PIL) No. 1531 of 2011 alleging, inter alia, that Building Plan was sanctioned with the connivance of officials of RRDA and Builder and, accordingly, prayer was made in PIL for issuance of direction for removal of illegal and unauthorized structure constructed on the ground floor of Chandralok Apartment. Initially, in the said PIL, this Court, after noticing the fact that several multi-storied buildings have been illegally and unauthorisedly constructed, vide order dated 22.03.2011, directed Central Bureau of Investigation to carry out investigation and, accordingly, RC Case No. 03/A/2011 dated 30.03.2011 was registered.

It may be noted that during pendency of the aforesaid PIL, since jurisdiction of sanction of Building Plan was transferred from RRDA to Ranchi Municipal Corporation (for short ‘RMC’), an investigation of Chandralok Apartment was conducted by officials of RMC and a report, vide Letter No. 1711 dated 08.05.2015, along with re