LexPRIYANKA ESTATES INTERNATIONAL P. LTD. & ORS. versus STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 80 A PRIYANKA ESTATES INTERNATIONAL P. LTD. & ORS. '( v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8026 of 2009) B DECEMBNER 3, 2009 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1985 - ss. 24 and 25 - Construction of extra floors without sanction c - Authority concerned directing demolition of the extra floors - Writ petition - High Court directing demolition of extra floors - On appeal, held: construction of building beyond 5Yi floors was illegal, unauthorized and without any sanction or approval of plans - However, if half unsanctioned portion of 5th floor, D is found to be compoundable, the same not to be demolished - Authorities at liberty to demolish 6th to 8th floors and half of the 5th floor if not cnmpounded ultimately - Urban Development. E s. 88 - Notice to individual - Failure in - Effect of - Held: Public notice by authorities cautioning the proposed purchasers to enter into agreement of purchase of flats on seeing Completion and Occupancy Certificates in favour of builders, would be deemed to be notice to the individuals - Notice. F Pursuant to permission granted by Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GDMA) for sale of the land for residential-cum-commercial use, the land was sold to appellant No. 1. Thereafter Guwahati Municipal G Corporation (GMC) granted permission for construction of basement, ground and upto 51/2 floors. Thereafter, applicant No. 1 applied for grant of permission for construction of remaining part of 5th floor and 6th, 7th and 8th floors. The permission was refused by GMC. Appellant H 80 PRIYANKA ESTATES INTERNATIONAL P. LTD. & 81 ORS. v. STATE OF ASSAM " preferred appeal against refusal order and the same was A allowed by Standing Appellate Committee (SAC) directinu that permission be granted. Despite the order, no formal permission was granted by GMC. Appellant moved further application, wherein Administrator-cum-Minister reviewed the verdict in appeal and granted permission for further B construction, subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. Appellants continued with construction of building beyond 5% floors, without compliance of the conditions and without getting actual sanction for such construction. GMDA issued notices to the appellant for demolition of the c construction beyond 5% floors. Appellants filed writ petition challenging the order, wherein status quo was ordered to the effect that the Municipal Authority shall take no steps to pull down the building and operation of notices for demolition was stayed. D Subsequently GMDA passed order of demolition. This order was also challenged in other writ petition, by the appellants. Despite the order of status quo, appellants continued with the construction. By a further clarificatory order, High Court directed that no further construction to E be carried out. Third parties also filed writ petitions seeking demolition of extra construction. High Court, by the impugned order dismissed the petitions filed by ,. appellants and allowed that filed by third parties directing demolition. Hence the present appeals. F Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Rules, regulations and bye-laws are made by Corporation or by Development Authorities, taking in G view the larger public interest of the society and it is a 1 bounden duty of ~he citizens to obey and follow such rules which ar~ _ .• ade for their benefit. If unauthorised constructions are allowed to stand or given a seal of approval by court then it is bound to affect the public at large. An individual has a right, including a fundamental H 82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. >( A right, within a reasonable limit, it inroads the public rights leading to public inconvenience, therefore, it is to be curtailed to that extent. [Para 74] [108-8-D] 1.2. In view of the admitted position that the width of B the road is only 38 feet and under the building bye-laws, maximum allowable height can be double the width of the road, i.e.76 feet, but in the instant case the SAC has allowed construction upto 93 feet, which contravenes the building bye-laws, therefore, such an order of SAC has c no legal force and cannot be basis for construction beyond 76 feet, allowable under building bye-laws. [Para 29] [94-H; 95-A-B] 1.3. The only plan approved was for 5Yz floors by GMC. Order passed by SAC also does
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.