R S SEHRAWAT Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was posted as a Junior Engineer, MCD at Lajpat Nagar from 1st December, 1995 till 4th March, 1996 and then from 22nd March, 1996 till 10th June, 1996. He submits that the petitioner was responsible for pointing out and bringing to the notice of the authorities, the unauthorized construction in property No. E-1, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi. Thereafter, demolition order dated 4th January, 1996 was passed and the property was also sealed on 26th February, 1996. On 22nd April, 1996 a police complaint was registered for breaking of the seals. Thus learned Trial Court has erred in framing charge against the petitioner.

(2.) The said facts and contentions were examined by the learned Additional Session Judge in his order dated 24th February, 2007. As per the charge sheet, the owner and builder of the property, who are co-accused had made 100% coverage on a plot size of 300 square yards/251.10 square meters on the ground, first and second floors. In addition, they have covered the side service lane upto the extent of 0.9 meters. The inspection report of Mr. Vishwa Mitra Kain, Retd. Chief Engineer, Indian Railways and Government approved valuer indicates that shops were constructed in the basement and ground floor. As per the bye laws the maximum FAR allowed was 160% and the use prescribed was residential. Unauthorized construction had gone on unabated even after 18th December, 1995 when it was detected for the first time as per the petitioner himself. As per the petitioner steps for sealing of the property to stop further unauthorized construction were taken only after office noting was made on 9th February, 1996. This was after it was noticed that in December, 1995 and in January, 1996 no police force was allegedly available and, therefore, the demolition order could not be implemented. The prosecution has also relied upon documents in form of agreement between the owner and the builder with regard to construction. The charge sheet records as under:

(3.) In view of the aforesaid allegations no case of discharge is made out. File notings are one aspect, which have to be taken into account but whether the file notings were actually implemented and carried forward is another aspect, which has to be examined. The other aspect is why and for what reason the sealing order to stop unauthorized construction was not passed till February, 1996. In these circumstances, I do not think the petitioner is entitled to discharge and his prayers cannot be accepted. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are for the purpose of disposing of the present petition and will not be binding on the trial court.