BUILDING OPERATION Vs. JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a statutory authority has called in question order dated 9 -9 -2005 passed by respondent No.2 in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under the provisions of Control of Building Operations Act, 1988.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts as emerge from the record reveal that respondent No.1 applied to the petitioner for grant of sanction/permission for construction of building at Ist Floor of the existing house for residential purposes. Petitioner granted sanction/permission for construction vide its sanction No. 139/BS/2002 dated 24 -7 -2002 and approved the plan with certain conditions as appended to the sanction order. It is alleged that respondent No.1 commenced construction in violation of the sanction plan. On the report of the Khilafwarzi Inspector a Show Cause Notice dated 4 -9 -2003 was issued to respondent No.1 to discontinue the construction, followed by notice dated 20 -10 -2003 to demolish the un -authorized construction. In the meanwhile respondent No.1 applied for sanction/permission in respect to the alleged un -authorized construction which request is said to have been rejected in the meeting held on 24 -2 -2004. A fresh demolition Notice No. MJ/Estt/38/3/CKO/03 dated 9 -6 -2004 came to be served upon respondent No.1. This demolition order was appealed against before respondent No.2, the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu. During the pendency of the appeal a report was filed by the petitioner giving details of the nature and extent of violation vide its report dated 2 -9 -2004. It was stated that the violation is serious in nature. Special Tribunal, the Appellate Authority decided the appeal vide the impugned order dated 9 -9 -2005. The Tribunal on consideration of the report and the Master Plan allowed the appeal and ordered compounding of the construction at the rate of Rs 15/ - per Sq ft in respect to the area measuring 5158 Sq ft and at the rate of Rs 20/ - per Sq ft in respect to the Balcony projection. Challenge to this order is based upon the ground that the violation is major in nature and not compoundable under the Building Operations Regulations 1998 which permit the compounding of only minor violations.

(3.) WITH a view to explain the violation of Regulations Mr. S.S. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the report of the Municipal Corporation and argued that huge construction has been raised at the first floor in gross violation of the sanction plan and the construction on the second floor is totally without any permission, whereas Balcony has been constructed over hanging the road. According to Mr. Nanda, the area is purely residential and respondent No.1 has constructed a Nursing Home in violation to the Master Plan.