NITINCHANDRA SOMNATH RAVAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the devastating earthquake measuring 7.7 on the Richter Scale which struck the State of Gujarat on 26/1/2001 having its epicentre in District Kutch, thousands of people lost their lives as they got buried under the rubble of buildings that got destroyed. The effects of the earthquake were felt in District Ahmedabad and beyond. The petitioner herein and his family were residing in a housing scheme named "Shikhar Tower" at the relevant point of time. However, in the massive earthquake, one amongst the four Blocks of the housing scheme i.e. Block-D, consisting of 40 residential flats, collapsed like a pack of cards and 98 residents were killed under the debris and several others were injured. The petitioner herein was also a sufferer as his two adult sons, daughter-in-law and grandson, who were in the building at the relevant time, had died.

(2.) It appears from the documents on record that construction work of the housing scheme - "Shikhar Tower" had commenced in pursuance of the Revised Development Permission dtd. 22/4/1998 issued by the competent authority. According to the said Development Permission, sanction was accorded to construct 160 residential flats in four towers, each consisting 40 residential flats, having built-up area of 42 sq. metres. After the construction work was over, the promoters of the housing scheme had applied for regularization of construction as some portion of the construction was illegal. However, the competent authority had regularized only a partial portion of the illegal construction. The Catalog of the housing scheme has been produced on record vide Annexure-S. However, the built-up area of Flats as shown in the Catalog varies from the particulars mentioned in the Revised Development Permission dtd. 22/4/1998. In other words, construction work was carried out in excess of what was sanctioned by the competent authority vide order dtd. 22/4/1998.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the respondent No.2 herein was the Builder of the housing society; however, the same has been disputed by the other side by submitting that as per the agreement for construction which was entered into between the parties, respondent No.2 was only a Supervisor. Be that as it may, the fact remains that said Tower-B was constructed, sold, occupied by different residents and had ultimately, collapsed.