ANUP KUMAR Vs. PRDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.10.2002 passed in Vigilance Case No. 172B/2001 by the erstwhile Vice - Chairman, Patna Regional Development Authority as affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 20 of 2002 being appellate order dated 20.11.2002.

(2.) THERE are two points of dispute. One is in relation to projection over open space as between the building which are in two blocks. The second is with regard to the height of building. So far as first is concerned, as evident from the orders of the Vice - Chairman, and the appellate authority none of the projections is more than 0.60 metre. In this regard I may refer to Bye -Laws 20.1.3.1 of the Building Bye -Laws. The said Bye -Laws provides for minimum distance of two blocks and in the case of petitioner it would be 3 metre. Immediately thereafter is Bye -Laws 20.1.4 which talks about exception to open space. Here it is specifically provided that the projection upto 0.60 metre over open space is permissible and that Bye -Laws itself notices that the effect of the projection would be reduced to the width to less than the minimum required. The Appellate Tribunal has held precisely that if such projection is permitted then the available width would stand reduced. In my view, Bye -Laws 20.1.4(a) clearly envisages such an eventuality by projection upto 0.60 Metre and it contemplates reduction of width to less than the minimum required. Therefore, in my view, the Tribunal was not correct in holding otherwise. When Bye - Laws contemplated reduction of width below minimum prescribed by projection it did not lie with the Tribunal to speak otherwise. The finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the Bye -Laws and cannot be sustained. The projection cannot be ordered to be demolished.

(3.) NEXT the only other dispute is with regard to height of building. As per sanctioned plan (Annexure 3) the height of the building from plinth is 11 metre. Allegedly on measurement it was found to be 12.05 metre. The petitioner has stated that the measurement as taken is from the ground level and not from the plinth level. Keeping in view the various local conditions the plinth level was above the ground level. The sanctioned map also shows the measurement from plinth but the plinth is shown as ground level also. In fact, the plinth has been made above the ground level for obvious reason as is common everywhere. If that is taken into account, a measurement was made from plinth it would be floor level, in question. The height does not exceed 11 metre. The building height is to be determined from its plinth level i.e. ground level for finished construction.