GANESH PERSHAD SETH Vs. NDMC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE we are concurring with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, we reflect upon the same arguments which were advanced before the learned Single Judge as they were the ones which were repeated before us, and state our reasons for agreeing with the learned Single Judge.

(2.) APPELLANT No.1, the Karta of appellant No.2, is the son of respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 is his sister. Respondent No.4 is a company floated by respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 as also the father of respondent No.2, being the husband of respondent No.3.

(3.) AT the relevant time i.e. when the settlement was effected a mezzanine, equivalent to 1/3rd of the ground floor coverage could be constructed without being adjusted in the FAR.