Sri K S Eshwarappa vs The Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 6859 Kant

                               1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021          R
                           BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

            WRIT PETITION No.20333 OF 2021 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI K.S.ESHWARAPPA
S/O SHIVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/O NO.5TH MAIN ROAD,
SIDDESHWARA NAGAR,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 203.                      ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

AND:

1.     THE COMMISSIONER
       CITY CORPORATION,
       SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

2.     THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
       CITY CORPORATION,
       SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

3.     ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
       DEPARTMENT OF LAND RECORDS
       OLD D.C.OFFICE, BALARAJ URS ROAD
       SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.          ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ASHWIN S.HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 (PHYSICAL
    HEARING)
    SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R3 (PHYSICAL
    HEARING))
                                2



     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 9.11.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-H ISSUED BY R1;
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO HOLD THAT, THE LICENSE IS
DEEMED TO HAVE GRANTED IN VIEW OF NOT PASSING ANY
ORDERS    ON   THE    APPLICATION     FILED   FOR    LICENSE    FOR
CONSTRUCTING OF HOUSE ON 13.11.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

     THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 06.12.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                             ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an

order dated 09-11-2021, by which, the property of the petitioner

is sought to be demolished invoking certain provisions of the

Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short)

and has sought for a consequential direction by issuance of writ

in the nature of mandamus to hold that the license for such

construction is deemed to have granted by the Shimogga City

Corporation ('the Corporation' for short) under the Act.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as

borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

The petitioner is a resident of Shimogga and is in

possession of a site bearing No.2150/3, PID No.32620, which is

carved out of Sy.No.25/3 in Gurupura, Ward No.5 (Old Ward

No.12), Shimogga, measuring 1680 sq.ft., which comes within

the precincts of the Corporation. The petitioner comes in

possession of the said property on purchasing the same in terms

of a registered sale deed dated 11-07-2007. It is the claim of the

petitioner that khata is changed in his name and he has been

paying tax regularly on the property.

3. The petitioner intending to construct a house in the

vacant site, makes an application and claims to have submitted

all the relevant documents and a building plan for such

construction on 13-11-2020. In terms of Section 313 of the Act,

the application of the petitioner had to be processed within the

time stipulated therein. That having not been done, the claim of

the petitioner is that, a license for such building is deemed to

have been granted under Section 315 of the Act. The petitioner

laid the foundation for the house in the month of January, 2021.

Based upon a complaint registered against such construction, a

notice was issued by the Corporation on 21-01-2021, directing

the petitioner to stop all further construction, as the

construction was in the buffer area adjacent to a nala running

on the backside of the property. The petitioner submits his reply

on 29-01-2021, requesting the Corporation to conduct a survey

of the property and determine whether the construction is being

undertaken by encroachment and then, further action be taken.

4. Without conducting a survey, one more notice was

issued on 03-02-2021, directing the petitioner to stop further

construction till survey report is obtained and further directed

the petitioner to undertake construction only after necessary

permission is granted. To this, again the petitioner submits a

representation on 22-02-2021, before the Standing Committee of

the Corporation. The Standing Committee also did not take any

action.

5. The Corporation issued a provisional order under

Sections 321(1)(a), 314 and 436A(1) of the Act, on 19-03-2021,

directing demolition of the construction on the ground that there

is encroachment of Government land and he is an unauthorized

occupant of the said property. The petitioner submits his reply

to this notice on 29.03.2021, after which, there was no action

taken by the Corporation. Eight months passed by and on

09-11-2021, exercising power under Sections 321(1)(i)(a), 314

and 436A(1) of the Act, the Corporation issued the impugned

order directing its Officers for demolition of the construction

undertaken by the petitioner, to be held on 19.11.2021. It is at

that juncture, the petitioner knocked the doors of this Court

challenging the said order.

6. Heard Sri Pruthvi Wadeyar, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Sri Ashwin S. Halady, learned counsel for respondent

Nos.1 and 2 and Smt. Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional

Government Advocate for respondent No.3.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

contend that the petitioner has on every occasion submitted

application/replies to all the notices that are issued and the

Corporation did not pursue the application submitted for grant

of building license and have now invoked wrong provisions for

directing demolition of the construction without at the outset

determining, whether the petitioner was an unauthorized

occupant on the Government land as is alleged. He would

submit that under Section 315 of the Act, if the Corporation

would not pass any order on the application for building license

within 14 days, it is deemed to have been granted. Therefore, no

action can be taken against the petitioner for having constructed

the house without even a building license.

7.1. On the other hand, the learned counsel, Sri Ashwin S.

Halady, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/Corporation

would vehemently refute the submissions and contends that the

petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and

has suppressed the notices issued by the Corporation and has

unabashedly undertaken such construction, even without a

license for such construction and as such, no fault can be found

in the order that is impugned as the building of the petitioner is

now standing without any permission, whatsoever from the

Corporation.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and

perused the material on record.

9. The afore-narrated fact of construction undertaken by

the petitioner is not in dispute. The petitioner applied for

permission to construct a building, enclosing all the documents

and a building plan on 13-11-2020. The said request that was

made is yet to be considered but the petitioner began

construction. A complaint was registered by one

Smt. Choodamani Rao Pawar, a resident of the same area, before

the Commissioner on 16-12-2020, stating that the petitioner is

undertaking construction by encroaching Raja Kaluve, which

was running behind her property. The complainant sought

investigation into the matter and removal of that portion of

encroachment. On receipt of the complaint, a notice was issued

to the petitioner on 21-01-2021. This is received by the

petitioner on 22-01-2021. The notice clearly indicated that there

is a complaint registered against the petitioner that the building

is being constructed without any permission from the

Corporation and desired that further construction of the

building should be immediately stopped. The notice reads as

follows:

"«µÀAiÀÄ: ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉà C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV PÀlÖqÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß vÀPÀët ¤°è¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.

G¯ÉèÃR: 1. ZÀÆqÁªÀÄtÂgÁªï ¥ÀªÁgÉ UÁA¢ü§eÁgïgÀªÀgÀ zÀÆgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ:16/12/2020.

***** «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ G¯ÉèÃRzÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À« §UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ²æà PÉ J¸ï F±ÀégÀ¥Àà ©£ï ²ªÀ°AUÀ¥Àà DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ªÁqïð £ÀA.05gÀ UÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ 5£Éà ªÀÄÄRå gÀ¸ÉÛ ¸À«£ÀAiÀÄ ±Á¯É JzÀÄgÀÄ ¹zÉÝñÀégÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ SÁvÉ ¸ÀASÉå:2150/3gÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉà C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV PÀlÖqÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £Á¯Á eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß MvÀÄÛªÀj ªÀiÁr PÀlÖqÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÁV PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

CzÀÝjAzÀ PÀlÖqÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉ PÀlÖqÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ËgÀ¤UÀªÀÄUÀ¼À C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1976gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¸ÀzÀj PÀlÖqÀ ¤ªÀiÁðtªÀ£ÀÄß PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV ªÀiÁrzÀ ¤ªÀiÁðtªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉqÀªÀ¨ÁgÀzÉA§ÄzÀPÉÌ F £ÉÆÃnøï vÀ®Ä¦zÀ 7 ¢£ÀzÉƼÀUÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶AiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀPÀët¢AzÀ PÁªÀÄUÁj PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÜVvÀUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ PÀlÖqÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ £Á¯ÁUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ §¥sÀgï «ÄøÀ®Ä eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ PÁªÀÄUÁj ¥ÁægÀA©¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. E®è¢zÀÝ°è vÀªÀÄä ºÉýPÉ / ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶ K£ÀÄ E®èªÉAzÀÄ ¨sÁ«¹ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ªÀÄÄA¢£À CUÀvÀå PÀæªÀÄ ªÀ»¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹zÉ."

To this notice, the petitioner submits his reply on 29-01-2021,

contending that on enquiry, he comes to know that the Nala

belongs to the Irrigation Department and seeks survey to be

conducted by the Irrigation Department and then action to be

taken, if he is wrong. Immediately thereafter, the Corporation

makes a communication to the Assistant Director of Land

Records to get a survey conducted of the area in which the

property is situated, to determine encroachment by the

petitioner over the Raja Kaluve. This was communicated to the

petitioner on 03.02.2021 and directed that till such survey is

conducted, the petitioner should not undertake any

construction. The intimation letter dated 03-02-2021, reads as

follows:

"«µÀAiÀÄ: ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉà C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV PÀlÖqÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß vÀPÀët ¤°è¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.

G¯ÉèÃR: 1. F PÀbÉÃj ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:².ªÀÄ.£À.¥Á² /PÁ.«(1)/¸ÀPÁC/¹.Dgï/78/2020-21 ¢£ÁAPÀ:21/01/2021.

2. ²æà PÉ.J¸ï.F±ÀégÀ¥Àà ©£ï ²ªÀ°AUÀ¥Àà EªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢:29.01.2021

3. F PÀbÉÃj ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:².ªÀÄ.£À.¥Á²/PÁ.«(1)/¸ÀPÁC/¹.Dgï/2020- 21, ¢£ÁAPÀ:02.02.2021.

*- *- *

¤ÃªÀÅ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ªÁqïð £ÀA 05gÀ UÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ 5£Éà ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛ ¸À«£ÀAiÀÄ ±Á¯É JzÀÄgÀÄ ¹zÉÝñÀégÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ SÁvÉ ¸ÀASÉå:2150/3gÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉà C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV PÀlÖqÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃR (1)gÀ°è ZÀÆqÁªÀÄtÂgÁªï ¥ÀªÁgÉ gÀªÀgÀÄ £Á¯Á eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß MvÀÄÛªÀj ªÀiÁr PÀlÖqÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÁV zÀÆgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

G¯ÉèÃRzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è PÀlÖqÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉ PÀlÖqÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ËgÀ¤UÀªÀÄUÀ¼À C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1976gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¸ÀzÀj PÀlÖqÀ

¤ªÀiÁðtªÀ£ÀÄß PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV ªÀiÁrzÀ ¤ªÀiÁðtªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉqÀªÀ¨ÁgÀzÉA§ÄzÀPÉÌ £ÉÆÃn¸ï vÀ®Ä¦zÀ 7 ¢£ÀzÉƼÀUÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶AiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸À°è¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÆ vÀPÀët¢AzÀ PÁªÀÄUÁj PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÜVvÀUÉƽ¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¥ÀvÀæ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, G¯ÉèÃR (2) gÀ°è vÁªÀÅ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà eÁUÀ MvÀÄÛªÀj ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ w½¹ vÀªÀÄä E¯ÁSɬÄAzÀ ¸ÀªÉð ªÀiÁr¸À§ºÀÄzÉAzÀÄ ºÁUÉãÁzÀgÀÆ MvÀÄÛªÀjAiÀiÁVzÀÝ°è ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj eÁUÀzÀ°è C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ PÀlÖqÀ ¤«Äð¹zÀ°è vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV ¸ÀzÀj eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÊ©qÀĪÀÅzÁV ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¹ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄwÛÃj ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è PÀlÖqÀ PÀªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀæUÀwAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. G¯ÉèÃR (3)gÀAvÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¨sÀÆ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À E¯ÁSÉ ºÀ¼É f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼À PÀbÉÃj, ¨Á®gÁeï CgÀ¸ï gÀ¸ÉÛ, ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎgÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è §gÀĪÀ £Á¯ÁzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á¯ÁzÀ §¥sÀgï eÁUÀzÀ §UÉÎ vÀÄvÁðV ¸ÀªÉð ªÀiÁr ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¥Àæ §gÉ¢zÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj E¯ÁSɬÄAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀܼÀzÀ ¸ÀªÉðªÀiÁr ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ªÀgÉUÀÆ vÁªÀÅ vÀPÀët¢AzÀ PÁªÀÄUÁj PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÜVvÀUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ PÀlÖqÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ PÁªÀÄUÁj ¥ÁægÀA©¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ E®è¢zÀÝ°è ªÀÄÄA¢£À CUÀvÀå PÀæªÀÄ ªÀ»¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹zÉ."

The petitioner again replied on 22.02.2021, that survey is to be

directed by a proper authority and sought permission to

construct. This resulted in another notice being issued on 17-

02-2021, directing that the petitioner should stop construction

immediately as survey is yet to be conducted for encroachment

of the Government land. At this stage, the construction was

only at the stage of foundation and pillars had come up. This

was also indicated in the notice. During these correspondences,

the petitioner did not stop construction but goes ahead with the

construction, which resulted in a notice being issued by the

Corporation on 19-03-2021, under Sections 321(1)(a), 314 and

436A(1) of the Act, titling it as a provisional order. The said

order reads as follows:

"²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ, ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ (1976 gÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ªÀÄĤ¹¥À¯ï PÀ¥ÉÆðgÉõÀ£ï PÁ¬ÄzÉ PÀ®A 321(2) gÀr £ÀqÀªÀ½)

£ÀA.PÁ«(1):¹Dgï:86/2020- 2021 ¢£ÁAPÀ:19.03.2020 «µÀAiÀÄ: PÀlÖzÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½AiÀÄ£ÀÄß G®èAWÉ£É ªÀiÁr PÀlÖqÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.

G¯ÉèÃR: 1. ²æÃ.ZÀÆqÁªÀÄtÂgÁªï ¥ÀªÁgï UÁA¢ü §eÁgïgÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ:16.12.2020

2. F PÀbÉÃj w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ £ÀA.::²ªÀÄ£À¥ÁE/¸ÀPÁC/¹Dgï/78/2020- 21 ¢£ÁAPÀ:21.01.2021

3. F PÀbÉÃj w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ £ÀA.::²ªÀÄ£À¥ÁE/¸ÀPÁC/¹Dgï/80/2020- 21 ¢£ÁAPÀ:03.02.2021

4. F PÀbÉÃj w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ £ÀA.::²ªÀÄ£À¥ÁE/¸ÀPÁC/¹Dgï/82/2020- 21 ¢£ÁAPÀ:17.02.2021

*****

ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ²æÃ.PÉ.J¸ï.F±ÀégÀ¥Àà ©£ï ²ªÀ°AUÀ¥Àà DzÀ vÁªÀÅ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ¥Á°PÉ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ ªÁqïð £ÀA.05gÀ 5£ÉêÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛ ¸À«£ÀAiÀÄ ±Á¯É ºÀwÛgÀ §gÀĪÀ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ¥Á°PÉ SÁvÉ ¸ÀASÉå:2150/3gÀ 156.03 ZÀ.«Äà C¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è ªÁ¸ÀPÁÌV PÀlÖqÀ PÀlÖ®Ä ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉUÉ «£Áå¸À £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉUÁV ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£ÉVAvÀ ªÀÄÄAavÀªÁV PÀlÖqÀ PÀlÄÖwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÁ®A 321(1)(J) ºÁUÀÆ 314 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ËgÀ¤UÀªÀÄUÀ¼À C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1976gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À G®èAWÀ£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ F PÀbÉÃj ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:21.01.2021 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ G¯ÉèÃR (2)gÀ°è ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ G®èAWÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹ w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. F PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtðªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀ¢AiÀÄ°è£À «ªÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀéAiÀÄA ªÉÊzÀåªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è G®èAWÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ¤ÃªÀÅ PÀlÖqÀ ¤AiÀiÁªÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À£ÀÄß G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁr ¤«Äð¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃR(3) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G¯ÉèÃR(4)gÀ°è G®èAWÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹ w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

ªÉÄîÌAqÀAvÉ ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£ÉVAvÀ ªÀÄÄAavÀªÁV PÀlÖqÀ PÀlÄÖwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ vÀªÀÄä ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ «ÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «Äj £Á¯ÁeÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß C£À¢üPÀ×vÀªÁV MvÀÄÛªÀj ªÀiÁr ¤AiÀĪÀĨÁ»gÀªÁV PÀlÖqÀ PÀlÄÖwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß £ÀUÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1976 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ËgÀ¤UÀªÀÄUÀ¼À C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 321(1)(J) 314 436- J(1)gÀ jÃvÁå PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV ªÀiÁrzÀ ¤ªÀiÁðtªÁVzÀÄÝ F ¥Á櫵À£À¯ï DqÀðgï£ÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀvÀÄÛ ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄAvÉ ºÉZÀÄѪÀj PÀlÖqÀ ¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß F w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ vÀ®Ä¦zÀ 7 ¢ªÀ¸ÀUÀ¼À M¼ÀUÁV vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. ®UÀvÀÄÛUÉƽ¹zÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è£À C¼ÀvÉUÀ¼À ºÁUÀÆ ªÀgÀ¢¹gÀĪÀ G®èAWÀ£ÉUÀ¼À §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀÝ°è PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj, ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ¥Á°PÉ, ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ ¸ÀA¥ÀQð¹ zÀÈqÀ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀî®Ä w½¹zÉ. E®è¢zÀÝ°è vÀªÀÄä ºÉýPÉ/¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶ K£ÀÄ E®èªÉAzÀÄ ¨sÁ«¹ ªÀÄÄA¢£À CUÀvÀå PÀæªÀÄ ªÀ»¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹zÉ.

«±ÉèÃóµÀuÉ:

PÀlÖqÀzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£ÉVAvÀ ªÀÄÄAavÀªÁV PÀlÖqÀ PÀlÄÖwÛgÀÄGzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ vÀªÀÄä ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ «ÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «ÄÃj £Á¯ÁeÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV MvÀÄÛªÀj ªÀiÁr ¤AiÀÄAiÀĨÁ»gÀªÁV PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÀUÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£Á C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄzÀ ºÁUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ PÁ¥ÉÆðgÉõÀ£ï C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ PÀ®A 321(1)9J) 314 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 436- J(1)£ÀÄß G®èAX¹ PÀlÖqÀ ¤«Äð¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ/¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀqÀvÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ zÁR¯É¬ÄAzÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀ ¸ÀܼÀ vÀ¤SÁ n¥Ààt¬ÄAzÀ ±ÀÈvÀªÁVzÉ. ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ «¹ÛÃtð=156.03 ZÀ.«Äà EzÀÄÝ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ ¥Àr¹ »A¨sÁUÀzÀ MvÀÄÛªÀj «¹ÛÃtð=76.44 ZÀ.«Äà DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

vÁvÁÌ°PÀ DYÉÐ

DzÉñÀ £ÀA.PÁ«(1):¹Dgï: /2020- 2021 ¢£ÁAPÀ:19.03.2021

²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ £ÀA.05gÀ 5£Éà ªÀÄÄRå gÀ¸ÉÛ ¸À«£ÀAiÀÄ ±Á¯É ºÀwÛgÀ §gÀĪÀ ªÀºÁ£ÀUÀgÀ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ SÁvÉ ¸ÀASÉå:2150/3gÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀzÀ PÀlÖqÀ ¤ªÀiÁðtzÀ GzÉÝñÀPÁÌV ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß F DzÉñÀ vÀ®Ä¦zÀ 7 ¢ªÀ¸ÀzÉƼÀUÉ vÉgÀªÀŪÀiÁqÀ®Ä DzÉò¹zÉ. vÀ¦àzÀ°è PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ªÀÄĤì¥À¯ï PÁ¥ÉÆðgÉõÀ£ï PÁAiÉÄÝ 1976gÀ PÀ®A 321(1)(J) 314 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 436- J(1)gÀ Cr F vÁvÁÌ°PÀ DeÉÐAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¹ÜjÃPÀj¹ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ."

To this, the petitioner submits a reply in justification of his

construction and contends that the provisions of the Act that are

invoked cannot be invoked against him. This resulted in an

order being passed on 01-06-2021, directing measurement of

the property to be taken in the presence of the petitioner. In the

meantime, the permission to construct the building that was

sought by the petitioner on 13-11-2020, is rejected on

30-06-2021, under the caption "other reasons" and as per the

report and recommendation of the Engineer and Town Planning

Officers to reject the application. Once the application is

rejected on 30-06-2021, the impugned order is passed. The

impugned order reads as follows:

"¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É:

ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ¥Á°PÉ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ ªÁqïð ¸ÀASÉå 05gÀ ¹zÉÝñÀégÀ£ÀUÀgÀ 5£Éà CqÀØgÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è ¤AiÀĪÀÄ G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁr ¤«Äð¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ G¯ÉèÃR (1)gÀ°è CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æà ZÀÆqÁªÀÄtÂ¥Áªï ¥ÀªÁgï EªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä PÀbÉÃjUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀªÀħA¢ü¹zÀ ªÁqïð C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀ ¸ÀܼÀ ¥Àjòî£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ, ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉ G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁr ªÁ¸ÀzÀ PÀlÖqÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ PÀlÖqÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÉ G¯ÉèÃR (2) (3) (4) gÀ°è w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß eÁj ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. G¯ÉèÃR (5)gÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ:19.03.2021 gÀAzÀÄ ²æà PÉ J¸ï F±ÀégÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀjUÉ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ DeÉÐAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÃgÀªÁV eÁj ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, EªÀgÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨sÁ»gÀªÁV ¤«Äð¹gÀĪÀ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÁªÉà vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀ PÀæªÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ °TvÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä 7 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À PÁ¯ÁªÀPÁ±À ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. DzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ E°èAiÀĪÀgÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀæªÀĪÀ»¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀÝjAzÀ F »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀ ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹, F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉò¹zÉ.

DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:²ªÀÄ¥Á/PÁ«/¹Dgï- 741/2021- 22 ¢£ÁAPÀ:9.11.2021

PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ªÀÄĤì¥À¯ï PÁ¥ÉÆÃðgÉõÀ£ï C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1976gÀ PÀ®A 321(1)(

i)(J) 314 ºÁUÀÆ 436- J(1) gÀAvÉ ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ¥Á°PÉ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ ªÁqïð £ÀA.05gÀ ¹zÉÝñÀégÀ£ÀUÀgÀ 5£Éà CqÀØgÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è ²æà PÉ J¸ï F±ÀégÀ¥Àà ©£ï ²ªÀ°AUÀ¥Àà vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀéwÛ£À ¸ÀASÉå 2150/3 (¦Lr, £ÀA.32620)gÀ°è ¤AiÀĪÀÄ G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁr ¤«Äð¹gÀĪÀ ªÁ¸ÀzÀ PÀlÖqÀzÀ ¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:19.11.2021gÀAzÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ 10.00 UÀAmÉUÉ vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸À®Ä DzÉò¹zÉ. F PÁAiÀÄðªÀ£ÀÄß PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAgÀgÀÄ («- 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2) G¥À DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ (PÀAzÁAiÀÄ) ºÁUÀÆ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ J¯Áè ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ(¥Àj¸ÀgÀ) PÀAzÁAiÀiÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, gÁd¸Àé ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ¥Àj¸ÀgÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ, J¯Áè ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ/QjAiÀÄ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ, ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ¥Á°PÉ gÀªÀjUÉ MvÀÄÛªÀj vÉgÀªÀÅ PÁAiÀiÁðZÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ°è PÁAiÀÄðZÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ°è PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä DzÉò¹zÉ."

The order directs demolition of the construction on the property

invoking Sections 321(1)(i)(a), 314 and 436A(1) of the Act.

Therefore, it becomes germane to notice those provisions of law,

Section 321 of the Act, reads as follows:

"321. Demolition or alteration of buildings or well work unlawfully commenced, carried on or completed:--

(1) If the Commissioner is satisfied,--

(i) that the construction or re-construction of any building or hut or well,--

(a) has been commenced without obtaining his permission or where an appeal or reference has been made to the standing committee, in contravention of any order passed by the standing committee; or

(b) is being carried on, or has been completed otherwise than in accordance with the plans or particulars on which such permission or order was based; or

(c) is being carried on, or has been completed in breach of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule or bye-law made under this Act or of any direction or requisition lawfully given or made under this Act or such rules or bye-laws; or

(ii) that any alteration required by any notice issued under section 308, have not been duly made; or

(iii) that any alteration of or addition to any building or hut or any other work made or done for any purpose into, or upon any building or hut, has been commenced or is being carried on or has been completed in breach of section 320, he may make a provisional order requiring the owner of the building to demolish the work done, or so much of it as, in the opinion of the Commissioner, has been unlawfully executed, or make such alterations as may, in the opinion of the Commissioner, be necessary to bring the work into conformity with the Act, rules, bye-laws, directions or requisitions as aforesaid, or with the plans or particulars on which such permission or orders was based and may also direct that until the said order is complied with the owner or builder shall refrain from proceeding with the building or well or hut.

(2) The Commissioner shall serve a copy of the provisional order made under sub-section (1) on the owner or builder of the building or hut or well together with a notice requiring him to show cause within a

reasonable time to be named in such notice why the order should not be confirmed.

(3) If the owner or builder fails to show cause to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, the Commissioner may confirm the order, with any modification he may think fit and such order shall then be binding on the owner.

(4) If the construction or reconstruction of any building or hut is commenced contrary to the provisions of section 300 or 314 and the Commissioner is of the opinion that immediate action should be taken, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a notice to be given under sub-section (2) shall not be of less duration than twenty-four hours and shall be deemed to be duly served if it is affixed in some conspicuous part of the building or hut to which the notice relates and published by proclamation at or near such building or hut accompanied by beat of drum, and upon such affixation and publication, all persons concerned shall be deemed, to have been duly informed of the matters stated therein."

(emphasis supplied)

Section 321(1)(i)(a) deals with commencement of construction

without obtaining permission or where an appeal or reference

has been made to the Standing Committee and undertakes such

construction or re-construction in contravention of any order

passed by the Standing Committee. Since Section 321 of the Act

bears reference to Sections 313 and 314 of the Act, it is germane

to notice Sections 313 and 314 of the Act, they read as follows:

"313. Application to construct or re-construct huts:--

(1) Every person who intends to construct or reconstruct a hut shall send to the Commissioner,--

(a) an application in writing for permission to execute the work, and

(b) a site-plan of the land.

(2) Every such application and a plan shall contain the particulars and be prepared in the manner required under the rules or bye-laws.

314. Prohibition against commencement of work without permission.--The construction or re-construction of a hut shall not be commenced unless and until the Commissioner has granted permission for the execution of the work on an application sent to him under Section 313."

(emphasis supplied)

Section 313 deals with application for permission to construct or

re-construct and Section 314 deals with prohibition against

commencement of work without permission. The present order

of demolition is passed under the afore-quoted provisions of law.

An unequivocal mandate of Section 314 of the Act is that, no

construction shall be commenced unless and until permission is

granted on an application sent under Section 313 of the Act. An

application under Section 313 of the Act is submitted by the

petitioner on 13.11.2020. No permission was granted for

commencement of work, but the petitioner went ahead with the

construction without any permission and reached a stage where

the construction got completed without such permission.

10. The defence of the petitioner is now required to be

noticed and considered. The defence is that, under Section 315

of the Act, permission is deemed to have been granted if an order

is not passed on an application submitted for such permission

under Section 313 of the Act, within fourteen days. Section 315

reads as follows:

"315. Period within which Commissioner is to grant or refuse to grant permission to execute

the work.--Within fourteen days after the receipt of any application made under section 313 for permission to construct or reconstruct a hut, or of any information or plan or further information or fresh plan required under rules or bye-laws, the Commissioner shall, by written order, either grant such permission or refuse on one or more of the grounds mentioned in section 317 to grant it."

(emphasis supplied)

Section 315 mandates that the Corporation shall within fourteen

days after receipt of the application under Section 313 of the

Act, either grant or refuse such permission on one or more

grounds referred to in Section 317 of the Act. Admittedly, no

order is passed under Section 315 of the Act, on an application

submitted by the petitioner under Section 313 of the Act.

Section 316 mandates that if the Commissioner delays grant of

permission as obtaining under Section 315 of the Act or no order

is passed under Section 315, a written request will be made by

the applicant before the Standing Committee and the Standing

Committee shall be bound on the written request of the

applicant to determine by a written order, whether permission

should be granted or not. Sub-section (2) of Section 316 of the

Act, reads as follows :

"316. Reference to standing committee if Commissioner delays to grant permission:--

(1) If within the period laid down in section 315, the Commissioner has neither granted nor refused to grant permission to construct or re-construct a hut, the standing committee shall be bound on the written request of the applicant to determine by written order whether such permission should be granted or not.

(2) If the standing committee does not, within thirty days from the receipt of such written request determine whether such permission should be granted or not, such permission shall be deemed to have been granted; and the applicant may proceed to execute the work but not so as to contravene any of the provisions of this Act or any rules or bye-laws made under this Act."

(emphasis supplied)

Section 316 mandates that if the Standing Committee does not

within 30 days from the date of receipt of such request,

determine whether the permission should be granted or not,

such permission shall be deemed to have been granted. It is here

the deeming clause comes in and not under Section 315 of the

Act as contended by the petitioner. If the petitioner had

approached the Standing Committee on the delay of an order

being passed by the Commissioner, the matter would have been

altogether different. The petitioner has not only undertaken

construction without any permission but does not even

approach the Standing Committee and now contends that

permission is deemed to have been granted. The contention is

ex-facie unacceptable, as it runs counter to Sections 313, 314,

315 and 316 of the Act. Section 317 of the Act reads as follows:

"317. Grounds on which permission to construct or re-construct hut may be refused:--

(1) The only grounds on which permission to construct or re-construct a hut be refused are the following, namely:--

          (a)    that the work or the use of the site
    for    the   work    would   contravene      some
    specified provision of any law or some

specified rule, bye-law, order or declaration made under any law;

(b) that the application for permission does not contain the particulars or is not prepared in the manner required under rules or bye-laws;

(c) that any information or plan required by the Commissioner under rules or bye-laws has not been duly furnished;

          (d)    that streets or roads have not
    been made as required by section 280;
          (e)    that the land on which the hut is

to be constructed or the street or streets on which such land abuts are not adequately drained, levelled or lighted;

          (f)    that the proposed hut would be an
    encroachment         upon     Government       or
    corporation land.


  (2) Whenever the Commissioner or standing

committee refuses to grant permission to construct

or reconstruct a hut, the reason for such refusal shall be specifically stated in the order."

Section 317 deals with grounds on which permission to

construct or reconstruct may be refused. Order of refusal under

Section 317 of the Act is also passed on 30-06-2021 and

communicated to the petitioner - online, as the application was

submitted online.

11. Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the afore-quoted

provisions of the Act, what would unmistakably emerge is that,

an application seeking construction or re-construction would be

submitted under Section 313 of the Act. Without express

permission, no work shall be undertaken under Section 314 of

the Act. Section 315 of the Act mandates the period in which

the Corporation is to grant or refuse to grant permission to

execute such work and in terms of Section 316 of the Act, on the

delay in granting or refusing permission, the applicant is at

liberty to approach the Standing Committee. The Standing

Committee shall consider such request and pass appropriate

order within 30 days and in the event, no order is passed, the

permission for such construction is deemed to have been

granted. Except submission of application under Section 313 of

the Act, none of the other statutory formalities are performed by

the petitioner nor has displayed patience to wait for such

permission to undertake construction.

12. It is, therefore, a fit case where the petitioner has

wantonly abused law and undertaken construction. It is not a

case, where the Corporation has kept quiet on seeing such

construction. Several notices were issued by the Corporation

against the petitioner but the petitioner goes on by justifying the

construction on one pretext or the other, and completes the

construction in a breakneck speed and begins to reside by the

time, the impugned notice is issued.

13. It is also to be noticed that there is an allegation that

the petitioner has encroached Raja Kaluve and constructed the

building on such Raja Kaluve. The request for survey that was

made by the Corporation on 03-02-2021 is also replied by the

Government immediately, that survey has to be conducted on its

own, out of its resources and Officers and not communicate to

the Department of Survey Settlement. Despite this reply, the

Corporation has not taken any steps to conduct a survey or

determine encroachment or even reject the application. The

application is rejected only on 30-06-2021 and certain notices

only for the purpose of record appear to have been issued by the

Corporation. If the Corporation had issued notices directing to

stop construction it ought to have rejected the application for

permission. Therefore, the Officers of the Corporation have also

displayed laxity in passing orders or taking timely action and the

petitioner has abused the law in undertaking construction

without permission. The building which is now completely

constructed without even a building license. In such

circumstances, no sympathy is required to be shown to the

petitioner for having undertaken construction blatantly contrary

to law. The order of demolition, thus, cannot be found fault

with.

14. Before parting with the case, it may not be inapt to

notice the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in several

cases concerning unauthorised or illegal construction. The Apex

Court in the case of DR. G.N.KHAJURIA V. DELHI

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1, has held as follows:

"10. Before parting, we have an observation to make. The same is that a feeling is gathering ground that where unauthorised constructions are demolished on the force of the order of courts, the illegality is not taken care of fully inasmuch as the officers of the statutory body who had allowed the unauthorised construction to be made or make illegal allotments go scot free. This should not, however, have happened for two reasons. First, it is the illegal action/order of the officer which lies at the root of the unlawful act of the citizen concerned, because of which the officer is more to be blamed than the recipient of the illegal benefit. It is thus imperative, according to us, that while undoing the mischief which would require the demolition of the unauthorised construction, the delinquent officer has also to be punished in

(1995) 5 SCC 762

accordance with law. This, however, seldom happens. Secondly, to take care of the injustice completely, the officer who had misused his power has also to be properly punished. Otherwise, what happens is that the officer, who made the hay when the sun shined, retains the hay, which tempts others to do the same. This really gives fillip to the commission of tainted acts, whereas the aim should be opposite."

(emphasis supplied)

Later, in FRIENDS COLONY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE VS.

STATE OF ORISSA2, has held as follows:

"24. Structural and lot area regulations authorise the municipal authorities to regulate and restrict the height, number of storeys and other structures; the percentage of a plot that may be occupied; the size of yards, courts and open spaces; the density of population; and the location and use of buildings and structures. All these have in our view and do achieve the larger purpose of the public health, safety or general welfare. So are front setback provisions, average alignments and structural alterations. Any violation of zoning and regulation laws takes the toll in terms of public

(2004)8 SCC 733

welfare and convenience being sacrificed apart from the risk, inconvenience and hardship which is posed to the occupants of the building."

(emphasis supplied)

Yet again, the Apex Court in the case of PRIYANKA ESTATES

INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD. VS. STATE OF ASSAM3, has held as

follows:

"55. It is a matter of common knowledge that illegal and unauthorised constructions beyond the sanctioned plans are on rise, may be due to paucity of land in big cities. Such activities are required to be dealt with by firm hands otherwise builders/colonisers would continue to build or construct beyond the sanctioned and approved plans and would still go scot-free. Ultimately, it is the flat owners who fall prey to such activities as the ultimate desire of a common man is to have a shelter of his own. Such unlawful constructions are definitely against the public interest and hazardous to the safety of occupiers and residents of multistoreyed buildings. To some extent both parties can be said to be equally responsible for this. Still the greater loss would be of

(2010)2 SCC 27

those flat owners whose flats are to be demolished as compared to the builder."

(emphasis supplied)

A little later, the Apex Court in the case of DIPAK KUMAR

MUKERJEE V. KOLKAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION4, has held

as follows:

"8. What needs to be emphasised is that illegal and unauthorised constructions of buildings and other structures not only violate the municipal laws and the concept of planned development of the particular area but also affect various fundamental and constitutional rights of other persons. The common man feels cheated when he finds that those making illegal and unauthorised constructions are supported by the people entrusted with the duty of preparing and executing master plan/development plan/zonal plan. The reports of demolition of hutments and jhuggi jhopris belonging to the poor and disadvantaged section of the society frequently appear in the print media but one seldom gets to read about demolition of illegally/unauthorisedly constructed multi-storeyed

(2013)5 SCC 336

structures raised by economically affluent people. The failure of the State apparatus to take prompt action to demolish such illegal constructions has convinced the citizens that planning laws are enforced only against poor and all compromises are made by the State machinery when it is required to deal with those who have money power or unholy nexus with the power corridors.

9. We have prefaced disposal of this appeal by taking cognizance of the precedents in which this Court held that there should be no judicial tolerance of illegal and unauthorised constructions by those who treat the law to be their subservient, .........."

(emphasis supplied)

In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court as afore-quoted,

the prevalent situation either in the limits of the Corporation,

Municipality or the Panchayat if noticed, it would demonstrate

clear apathy on the part of the Authorities towards the citizens,

as illegal and unauthorised construction of the buildings and

other structures, as observed by the Apex Court, would not only

violate the Municipal Laws, the concept of planned development

of a particular area, but affects various fundamental and

constitutional rights of other persons. The common man bears

the brunt, feels cheated when he finds those making illegal and

unauthorised constructions getting support, sometimes, either

tacit or direct, by the wings of the State which are enjoined with

a duty to act swiftly and stall such construction.

15. Silence or ignorance; turning a blind eye or a deaf ear

of the Authorities towards the cry of certain citizens who bring

into light the alleged illegal constructions will have to be

forthwith addressed by the powers that be, of such

Corporations, Municipal Councils and Panchayats, as all power

is a trust that is bestowed upon the servants of the Government

or Officers of the statutory bodies, which the State or the

Statutory Bodies cannot afford to erode.

16. This Court has come across umpteen number of cases

like the subject petition, wherein allegation is of illegal

constructions undertaken and of the responsible Officers

turning a blind eye towards such constructions. It is, therefore,

necessary that the jurisdictional Assistant Engineer, Assistant

Executive Engineer or the Executive Engineer as the case would

be, of all the Corporations, who are empowered to act, under the

Act, are required to act swiftly, the moment such illegal or

unauthorised construction comes to light, either by such officers

themselves or on any complaint being registered against such

construction, take action in accordance with law, without any

loss of time, failing which, the State or the Corporations shall

initiate departmental enquiry against those Officers who show or

have shown lackadaisical attitude in the performance of their

duty to check the growth of such illegal constructions in their

jurisdictions. Administrative tolerance against such Officers

should be reduced to zero, as time has come, where a citizen who

undertakes illegal or unauthorised construction should be dealt

with stern hands, equally so, the Officers who permit such

construction also be dealt with the same stern hands.

17. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition lacks merit and is dismissed with costs

of Rs.50,000/- payable to the Chief Minister's Relief

Fund.

(ii) The Corporation shall take the impugned order

dated 09.11.2021, to its logical conclusion bearing in

mind the observations made in the course of this

order.

(iii) A copy of this order shall be furnished to the

Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Urban

Development, for compliance and passage of

necessary orders.

Sd/-

JUDGE

nvj CT:MJ