Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2004 (11) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (11) TMI 562 - SC - Indian LawsWhether in the matter of determining and compounding deviations it is the law as on the date of such decision which would apply or the one as was prevailing on the date of commission of the illegal act would apply? Whether the present case shall be determined by reference to the regulations as were prevailing prior to the coming into force of the Cuttack Development Authority (Planning and Building Standard) Regulations, 2001?
Issues Involved:
1. Unauthorized construction beyond sanctioned plans. 2. Proceedings under Section 92 of the Orissa Development Authorities Act. 3. Builder's appeal and interim stay. 4. Public interest writ petition. 5. High Court's judgment and its implications. 6. Supreme Court's directions and further proceedings. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Unauthorized Construction Beyond Sanctioned Plans: The builder constructed a six-storeyed apartment, "Kalyani Apartment," in Friends Colony, Cuttack, exceeding the sanctioned four-storeyed plan. The construction included unauthorized projections and an entirely unauthorized fifth floor. The deviations were substantial and posed threats to the environment, safety, and planned development of the city. 2. Proceedings Under Section 92 of the Orissa Development Authorities Act: On 7.2.1994, the Cuttack Development Authority initiated proceedings against the builder under Section 92 of the Act, demanding the demolition of the unauthorized portions. The builder responded by claiming the deviations were minor and sought compounding instead of demolition. The Authority, however, ordered the demolition of the fifth floor and unauthorized projections while allowing compounding for certain deviations upon payment of Rs. 2.09 lakhs. 3. Builder's Appeal and Interim Stay: The builder appealed against the Authority's order, and the appellate authority granted an interim stay on the demolition, with the condition to halt further construction. Despite this, the builder continued construction, defying the stay order. The appellate authority eventually dismissed the builder's appeal, emphasizing the threat posed by the unauthorized construction to the environment and city planning. 4. Public Interest Writ Petition: The Friends Colony Development Committee filed a writ petition in the High Court of Orissa, challenging the illegal construction and seeking its demolition. They also sought to be impleaded in the builder's appeal. The High Court allowed their impleadment but later ruled that the Committee had no right to participate in the builder's writ petition, suggesting they file a civil suit instead. 5. High Court's Judgment and Its Implications: The High Court directed that if the builder submitted a revised plan for the existing construction, the Authority should consider it according to the law. The builder was to maintain the status quo and not proceed with further construction until the Authority's decision. The High Court's judgment was challenged, leading to the current appeal in the Supreme Court. 6. Supreme Court's Directions and Further Proceedings: The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and stayed the High Court's judgment. It directed the Authority to prepare a plan showing sanctioned and unauthorized constructions and determine how much could be regularized. The Authority was also to suggest terms for regularization and toleration of non-compoundable deviations. The builder was directed to deposit the compounding fee provisionally. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for stringent actions against unauthorized constructions and held that professional builders should be dealt with sternly. The High Court was instructed to hear both the builder's and the Committee's petitions together, determine the extent of permissible regularization, and ensure rehabilitation and compensation for displaced occupants at the builder's cost. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside. The case was remanded to the High Court for further proceedings, with specific directions to address the unauthorized construction issue comprehensively and consider the public interest. The High Court was also encouraged to monitor unauthorized building activities in Cuttack through suo motu public interest litigation if deemed necessary.
|