NOC for Neighbours of Stilt Plus Four in Haryana - Main points and insights:
Property and Structural Regulations:
The references indicate that approvals and NOCs (No Objection Certificates) for structures like Stilt Plus Four are governed by state regulations and building codes. The Haryana High Court and Supreme Court decisions emphasize the importance of adherence to safety, capacity, and legal compliance in construction projects (e.g., Nilabati Behera v. State of Haryana, 2006 SCC 178) Municipal Corporation of Delhi VS Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy - Rajasthan, Municipal Corporation of Delhi VS Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy - Supreme Court.
Building Capacity and Modifications:
Court rulings mention modifications such as increased seating capacity, closure of exits, and creation of gangways, highlighting that alterations require proper permissions and may impact NOC requirements (e.g., SCC 178 case) Municipal Corporation of Delhi VS Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy - Rajasthan, Municipal Corporation of Delhi VS Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy - Supreme Court.
Neighbouring Property and Legal Approvals:
The property of neighbours, especially in the context of stilt floors and multi-storey constructions, necessitates obtaining NOCs from adjacent property owners and local authorities to ensure compliance and prevent disputes (e.g., South:: Neighbours Property, AIR 1995 Punjab and Haryana 86) Yanala Malleshwari w/o Y. Yadagiri Reddy Others v. Ananthula Sayamma W/o Lte Gopaiah and another - Andhra Pradesh.
Analysis and Conclusion:
For a Stilt Plus Four structure in Haryana, securing an NOC involves ensuring compliance with local building regulations, safety standards, and obtaining approvals from relevant authorities and neighbours.
References:
- Nilabati Behera v. State of Haryana, 2006 SCC 178
- M/s. Ravindra Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 Punjab and Haryana 86
- ONGC Limited v. Saw Pipes Limited, 2003 (5) SCC 705
State of Haryana 2006 (3) SCC 178 etc. Specific reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Nilabati Behera vs. ... State of Haryana (2006 (3) SCC 178) this court held: ... "It is now well-settled that award of compensation against the State is an appropriate and effective remedy for redressal of an established infringement of a fundamental right ... As a result (i) the seating capacity which was 287 plus Box of 14 went up to 302 plus two Boxes (14+8), (ii) the right side exit was closed and a box of 8 seats a....
State of Haryana 2006 (3) SCC 178 etc. Specific reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Nilabati Behera v. ... As a result (i) the seating capacity which was 287 plus Box of 14 went up to 302 plus two Boxes (14+8), (ii) the right side exit was closed and a box of 8 seats added; (iii) the right side vertical gangway was closed and a new gangway created between seat Numbers (8) and (9); (iv) the width of the gangways ... ... (iii) Illegal parking in stilt floor: The stilt floor where the t....
... SOUTH :: Neighbours Property. ... EAST :: Road No. 7. ... WEST :: Neighbours Property. ... In this connection, we are fortified in our view by a Division Bench judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/s. Ravindra Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 Punjab and Haryana 86. ... State of Haryana AIR 1995 Punjab and Haryana 86, ONGC Limited v. Saw Pipes Limited 2003 (5) SCC 705 : (AIR 2003 SC ....
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.