9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the construction carried out by the petitioners is in accordance with law. 2. Whether the construction can be regularized by the Corporation by charging a penalty. 3. Whether the notice under Section 260(1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 was valid. 4. Whether the plans submitted by the petitioners were deemed to have been sanctioned. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the construction carried out by the petitioners is in accordance with law. The petitioners carried out construction on sub-plot Nos. 45, 46, 47, 48, and 49 of final plot No. 35 situated at Ved Road, Surat, without obtaining necessary permissions from the competent authority. The original owner had submitted a scheme under Section 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, for providing houses to weaker sections, but there was no record indicating that the land remained with the owners or that houses were constructed as per the approved plans. The petitioners commenced construction illegally, leading the respondent Corporation to initiate demolition proceedings. The petitioners claimed that they acted in good faith and within permissible bye-laws, but they failed to obtain the required permissions, making their construction unauthorized. Issue 2: Whether the construction can be regularized by the Corporation by charging a penalty. The petitioners argued that the construction could be regularized by the Corporation by charging an appropriate penalty. However, the Corporation pointed out that the construction violated several regulations, including the Floor Space Index (FSI) and margin requirements. The petitioners used more than three times the permissible FSI and constructed on land margins, which could not be regularized. The Court emphasized that illegal constructions cannot be regularized merely by paying a penalty, as it would undermine the purpose of building regulations designed for public safety and planned urban development. Issue 3: Whether the notice under Section 260(1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 was valid. The petitioners contended that the notice under Section 260(1) could not have been issued as the Town Planning Scheme was applicable to the area in question. The Corporation argued that the permission initially granted in 1991 was for different survey numbers and not for the re-plotted sub-plots allotted to the petitioners. The Court found that the petitioners commenced construction without submitting new plans for the re-plotted area, making the notice under Section 260(1) valid. The petitioners' argument that they were under a bona fide impression that no new permission was required was rejected as they failed to follow the proper legal procedures. Issue 4: Whether the plans submitted by the petitioners were deemed to have been sanctioned. The petitioners claimed that their plans were deemed to have been sanctioned as the Corporation did not communicate disapproval within 30 days. However, the Corporation provided evidence that the application was rejected on 29-10-1999, and the petitioners were informed accordingly. The Court held that deemed permission cannot be inconsistent with the rules and regulations, and the petitioners' construction was in clear violation of building regulations. The deemed permission argument was also invalidated by the fact that the petitioners commenced construction before the expiry of the 30-day period and without giving notice of commencement to the City Engineer. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the appeals, finding that the petitioners carried out unauthorized construction in violation of building regulations and failed to obtain necessary permissions. The Court directed the Corporation to withhold essential supplies and ordered the disconnection of electric supply to the building. The petitioners were also directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- for each appeal. The request for a stay on the judgment was rejected, but the Court granted a four-week period before demolition, during which the petitioners were to maintain the status quo and file an undertaking not to carry out further construction.
|
