RANCHI, India, Oct. 7 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Sept. 8:
Heard Mr. Rohitashya Roy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Yash Raj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Ranchi Municipal Corporation.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 3789 of 2022, in which, the challenge made by the writ-petitioner/appellant to the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/- on account of some deviation and making temporary construction has been rejected.
Submission has been advanced by Mr. Rohitashya Roy, learned counsel appearing for the writpetitioner/appellant that the deviation which was found was with respect to 6.59% in the plinth covered area and which was within the condonable limit of 20% in terms of the Building Bylaws. It has further been submitted that some temporary structure was found to have been constructed in the parking area which the RRDA authorities could have removed themselves or could have asked the writ-petitioner/appellant to remove and in fact without any rational basis an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- has been fixed as a penalty which the appellant without prejudice to his rights has already deposited pursuant to the dismissal of the writ application. Mr. Roy has also copiously referred to Section 428 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 while submitting that the fine amount ranges from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/- depending on the breach/deviation which has occurred in the construction of the building but the said fact has not at all been considered by the authorities concerned and he has further reiterated that the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- imposed as a fine amount is without any proper reasonings.
Mr. Yash Raj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Ranchi Municipal Corporation has defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 3789 of 2022 while submitting that no sanction was taken prior to making the deviations which was contrary to the provisions of Section 428 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011. Mr. Gupta has also referred to the impugned order in the writ application dated 05.10.2017 passed in U.C. Case No. 127 of 2016, in which, an appropriate consideration of the deviation and the temporary structure which was constructed by the writ-petitioner/appellant has been noticed and consequently a penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/- has been imposed upon the writ-petitioner/appellant.
The factual aspects of the case reveal that prior to the construction of a building over the land belonging to the writ-petitioner he had got building plans sanctioned from Ranchi Regional Development Authority which was the then competent authority vide B.C. Case No. 1135/2003. The building plan was sanctioned for basement, ground floor and six upper floors (B+G+6). An inspection of the building was carried out, in which, it was found that there was no deviation in the front and rear setback of the building and the height of the building was also found to be in terms of the sanctioned plan but there was a deviation in the plinth area to the extent of 20.05 square meter which comes to 6.59%. The inspecting team had also found certain encroachments in the front and rear setbacks which was causing obstacle in the parking of vehicles. Based on the report of the inspecting team of the RRDA, an unauthorized construction case being U.C. Case No. 127/2016 was instituted against the writ-petitioner, in which, he had appeared and filed a show cause before the respondent no. 2 who on consideration of the same had passed an order on 05.10.2017 imposing a penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/- upon the writ-petitioner/appellant.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=tuqye3PhFs%2BBDn75ghiOpJazCIhO6csjylGCeBozRyJ%2BcMgSD9XYv7AON4wCCiBw&caseno=LPA/687/2023&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010427402023&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
