FRIENDS COLONY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Friends Colony Development Committee, the appellant before us, is a society registered in the year 1982 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. One of its objects is to over -see development of the residential area known as 'Friends Colony in Cuttack city. M/s. Modern Mechatech Housing Ltd., the respondent No.2, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, and engaged in building activity. Pratap Kumar Biswal, respondent No.3, is its Managing Director. The other parties impleaded in this appeal are -the State of Orissa through the Commissioner -cum -Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and Cuttack Development Authority (hereinafter the 'Authority for short). The property involved in this litigation is a six storeyed apartment situated in Friends Colony and known as 'Kalyani Apartment.

(2.) THE background facts leading to the present appeal are briefly stated hereinafter. The property belonged to one Abhiram Panda. He gave a power of attorney to the builder (respondent Nos.2 and 3) for construction of a multi -storeyed apartment on the said land. On an application made by the builder, the Authority accorded sanction on 3.3.1993 for construction of a four storeyed building in accordance with the building plans sanctioned by the Authority. The construction commenced and when the building came up it was found to have been built up grossly in excess of the sanctioned plan on all the floors. Though the sanction accorded by the Authority permitted only four stories but even a fifth floor had also come up. On 7.2.1994, the Authority initiated proceedings under Section 92 of the Orissa Development Authorities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, for short) against the builder calling upon it to show cause why the offending portions be not demolished. The stand taken by the builder in its response was that the deviations were very minor ones calling for a sympathetic view and compounding of the deviations instead of being demolished. On 25.9.1994 the appellant made a representation to the Authority complaining of the offending construction and submitting that the deviations from the sanctioned plan damaged the environment and endangered life and safety of not only the occupants of the building, but also of other inhabitants of the locality. The representations by the appellant were made not only to the Authority, but also to the Cuttack Municipality, the Pollution Control Board and the State Government.

(3.) ON 2.12.1994 the builder filed an appeal before the appellate authority which granted interim stay of demolition as directed by the Authority, but subject to the condition that the builder shall stop all further constructions. However, the builder proceeded with the building activity by defying the conditions incorporated in the order of the stay granted by the appellate authority. The appellants representations inviting attention of the Authority did not serve any purpose.