BUDHISHWAR GAUR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 6 and her husband, Bhagwat Guru submitted an application seeking permission for development of land, under section 16 of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the ˜Act' for brevity sake) on 9.8.2010. The permission was accorded by respondent No. 2 on 8.9.2010 for development works on Khasra No. 2731/187 measuring 1620.80 square meters. The set -backs were prescribed in the building permission dated 8.9.2010. Respondent No. 3 also accorded building permission, under section 203 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as the ˜Municipal Act' for brevity sake) on 7.12.2010. Respondents No. 5 and 6 started raising construction in sequel to Annexures P -2 and P -3 dated 8.9.2010 and 7.12.2010, respectively. Petitioner filed a complaint to the Town Planner, Town and Country Planning Department, Kullu, vide Annexure P -5 on 21.4.2011 stating therein that respondent No. 5 has started raising construction in violation of building plan approved by the Town and Country Planning Department and also by the Municipal Council, Kullu. Petitioner has requested the concerned authorities to visit the spot and prepare the site construction map. It was also stated that no rain harvesting tank has been constructed as shown in the site plan thus violating the approved plan. In sequel to the complaint made by the petitioner, the Executive Officer of respondent No. 3, Municipal Council, Kullu sent a communication to respondent No. 5 advising him to stop the work and take the demarcation from the revenue authorities vide letter dated 21.4.2011. It was stated that the construction should be as per approved plan. The Assistant Town Planner also issued order dated 23.4.2011, under section 39 -A of the Act to respondent No. 5 to stop the construction forthwith on the building, failing which action under section 39 of the Act was required to be initiated. The copies of the same were also addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kullu. According to the averments contained in the petition, respondents No. 5 and 6 did not stop the construction work and in these circumstances the present petition has been filed.

(2.) RESPONDENTS No. 1 and 2 have admitted in the reply that no demarcation report was submitted by late Sh. Bhagwat Guru and respondent No. 6. It is further averred in the reply that the Junior Engineer of the Divisional Town Planning Office, Kullu, after the complaint filed by the petitioner has visited the spot and some deviation was noticed for which notice was issued to respondent No. 5 to stop the construction work. The copies of the notice were also endorsed to Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kullu and Station House Officer, Kullu for taking necessary action. According to the reply, violation and deviation could only be ascertained after the demarcation by the competent authority. It is also averred that the proposal for construction of building plan submitted by late Sh. Bhagwat Guru and respondent No. 6 was well within the land under their ownership and possession and the maps were approved strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It was also admitted by respondents No. 1 and 2 that the sketch map was prepared without demarcation and the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu was requested for the demarcation of the land as early as possible.

(3.) RESPONDENTS No. 5 and 6 have also filed separate reply. The sum and substance of the reply filed respondents No. 5 and 6 is that the construction was being carried out strictly as per Annexure P -2. The locus of the petitioner was also challenged. According to respondents No. 5 and 6, the communications issued as per Annexures P -6 and P -7, were only advisory in nature.