Judgment 1.By this writ petition in the name of Public Interest Litigation the issue has been raised that on Plot No 165 to 168, situated in Krishan Nagar, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur, illegal multi-storied construction has been raised. 2. JDA has not filed reply. Reply has been filed by Respondent No. 3. For ready reference the reply reads as under:-“As regards, Plot No. 166 is concerned, it was owned by Smt. Shashi Kedia. Plot No 167 is also owned by Smt. Shashi Kedia, W/o Shri Birendra Kedia and Plot No. 168 is owned by Smt. Nirmala Kedia, W/o Shri Surendra Kedia. The owner of Plot No. 166, 167 and 168 had submitted an application for reconstitution of these plots which was allowed by Jaipur Development Authority vide letter dated 24.02.2004 with the clear direction and condition that on the reconstituted plots, construction could only be done after taking approval of building plan from Jaipur Development Authority. On reconstituted plots, Jaipur Development Authority released duly approved building plan on 27.07.2004. Thereafter construction was started by the owner of the plots namely Smt. Shashi Kedia and Smt. Nirmala Kedia. Thus, the construction on Plot No. 165 was started and completed by owner of the plot namely Smt. Shashi Kedia likewise owner of Plot No. 166 to 168 namely Smt. Shashi Kedia and Smt. Nirmala Kedia has undertaken construction which is under process, therefore, Respondent No. 3 has got no connection with the construction on Plot No. 165 to 168 and has been wrongly impleaded in the writ petition, henceforth in absence of necessary party, this writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be rejected. Parawise reply to the writ petition: 1. That the averments made in Para 1 of the writ petition are denied in the manner it has been stated. The averments made in the writ petition clearly shows that it is not a Public Interest Litigation. To the contrary, petitioner is raising personal grievance and the contents of writ petition clearly shows that on factually incorrect statement, petitioner had filed this writ petition under the garb of Public Interest Litigation. 2. That the averments made in Para 2 of the writ petition are denied. It is submitted that Kishan Nagar is a scheme approved by the Jaipur Development Authority. Kishan Nagar Scheme was launched by the Shilpacharya Vishwakarma Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti. 2. That the averments made in Para 2 of the writ petition are denied. It is submitted that Kishan Nagar is a scheme approved by the Jaipur Development Authority. Kishan Nagar Scheme was launched by the Shilpacharya Vishwakarma Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti. Smt. Shashi Kedia, W/o Shri Birendra Kedia is owner of the Plot No. 165 measuring 389.24 Sq. Yards. Jaipur Development Authority held the camp and allotted patta in favour of Smt. Shashi Kedia and also issued site plan. The allotment letter was issued on 23.08.2002 which was got registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Jaipur. As regards, Plot No. 166 and 167 are concerned, these plots are also owned by Smt. Shashi Kedia. Smt. Shashi Kedia has deposited all demanded amount to Jaipur Development Authority and Jaipur Development Authority had issued patta in favour of Smt. Shashi Kedia on 23.08.2002 and also issued site plan in favour of Smt. Shashi Kedia. As regards Plot No. 168 is concerned, it is owned by Smt. Nirmala Kedia, W/o Shri Surendra Kedia for which also patta and site plan have been issued by the Jaipur Development Authority in favour of Smt. Nirmala Kedia. It is settled position that in the scheme duly approved by Jaipur Development Authority, the sewerage lines and necessary amenities are required to be laid down by Jaipur Development Authority, therefore, Jaipur Development Authority had demanded sewerage charges from owner of Plot No. 165 to 168. The owner of Plot No. 165 had deposited amount of Rs. 5,354/-through challans on 20 .10.2003, in respect of Plot No. 166 sewerage charges amounting to Rs. 3,451/-was deposited on 212.2003, in respect of Plot No. 167 sewerage charges amounting to Rs. 3,451/-, was deposited on 212.2003 and in respect of Plot No. 168, sewerage charges amounting to Rs. 5,678/-was deposited on 212.2003. It is relevant to mention here that Jaipur Development Authority had already laid sewerage system in front of Plot No. 165 to 168 and these plots are duly connected with sewerage lines. Further, these Plot Nos. 165 to 68 are situated on 40 Ft. wide road and the owners of these plots had followed due process and provisions of prevailing building regulations in undertaking constructions on these plots. The owner of Plot No. 166, 167 and 168 had applied for reconstitution of plot and submitted an application to Jaipur Development Authority on 11.02.2004 with prescribed fee. 165 to 68 are situated on 40 Ft. wide road and the owners of these plots had followed due process and provisions of prevailing building regulations in undertaking constructions on these plots. The owner of Plot No. 166, 167 and 168 had applied for reconstitution of plot and submitted an application to Jaipur Development Authority on 11.02.2004 with prescribed fee. Jaipur Development Authority had accepted the application and allowed reconstitution of plots vide their letter dated 24.02.2004 with the clear stipulation that on the reconstitution of plot, the construction could only be done after taking approval of building plan from Jaipur Development Authority. The reconstituted site plan of Plot No. 166, 167 and 168 was also issued by Jaipur Development Authority for total area measuring 1006.46 Sq. Yards. In the site plan, set back have been mentioned. The copies of patta and site plan of Plot No. 165, copies of letter of Jaipur Development Authority dated 24.02.2004 and reconstituted site plan of Plot No. 166,167 and 168 copy of deposit of sewerage charges in respect of Plot No. 165, copy of deposit of sewerage charges in respect of Plot No. 166 and 167 and copy of deposit of sewerage charges in respect of Plot No 168 are enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-R3/1 to R3/8 respectively. 3. That the averments made in Para 3 of the writ petition are denied. The petitioner has not submitted correct facts in respect of measurement of Plot No. 165 and it has wrongly alleged that it is measuring only 328.88 Sq. Yards whereas the measurement of Plot No. 165 is 389.24 Sq. Yards situated on 40 Ft. wide road. It has also wrongly been alleged that the owner of Plot No. 165 had constructed ground + 4 storeys (multistorey building). In fact, the owner of Plot No. 165, Smt. Shashi Kedia had applied to Jaipur Development Authority in prescribed form for seeking permission for construction of residential building on Plot No. 165. In this regard, the permission fee of Rs. 2,500/-and security fee of Rs. 100/-was deposited on 20.10.2003. The competent authority of Jaipur Development Authority had considered the application and vide letter dated 210.2003, allowed construction with certain parameters on plot No. 165. The parameters were having details of set back and height. In this regard, the permission fee of Rs. 2,500/-and security fee of Rs. 100/-was deposited on 20.10.2003. The competent authority of Jaipur Development Authority had considered the application and vide letter dated 210.2003, allowed construction with certain parameters on plot No. 165. The parameters were having details of set back and height. That immediately after receipt of letter dated 210.2003, owner of Plot No. 165 Smt. Shashi Kedia had started construction of residential building on Plot No. 165 and adhered to building regulation and parameters applicable to this Plot No. 165. The construction was completed in the month of April, 2004. No violation have been committed. The building at site consist of basement, ground floor + two storeys. The total height of the building is 33 ft. (Near about 10 Mtrs.), which is permissible in law. Thus, allegation of petitioner that Respondent No. 3 had constructed ground + 4 storey is absolutely baseless and false and by no stretch of imagination this building could be called as multistorey building because under Jaipur Development Authority (Jaipur Region Building) Regulation, 2000, the multistoreyed building has been defined which means building having height of more than 15 Mtrs. as such admittedly the construction on Plot No. 165 cannot be called as multistorey building and the grievance of petitioner is baseless and frivolous and deserves to be rejected. The copy of challan for deposit of permission fee and letter of Jaipur Development Authority dated 210.2003 granting permission to raise construction on plot No. 165 are enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-R3/9 and R3/10 respectively. 4. That the averments made in Para 4 of the writ petition are denied. The owner of Plot No. 165 Smt. Shashi Kedia had followed the Building Regulation 2000 in construction of building and also left proper set backs as required under law and as has been approved by Jaipur Development Authority. There is no violation of norms and construction has been raised in accordance with permission granted by Jaipur Development Authority. On vague and baseless allegation, the Public Interest Litigations are not maintainable. It is relevant to mention here that during the process of construction, Jaipur Development Authority and their officers at number of times had inspected the site. As regards, parking is concerned, it is submitted that enough parking place has been provided in the basement and in open areas. On vague and baseless allegation, the Public Interest Litigations are not maintainable. It is relevant to mention here that during the process of construction, Jaipur Development Authority and their officers at number of times had inspected the site. As regards, parking is concerned, it is submitted that enough parking place has been provided in the basement and in open areas. The parking plan is enclosed and marked as Annexure-R3/11. In the open area also, the provisions has been made for parking of cars and two wheelers and cycles. Thus, a proper care has been made towards proper parking. The answering respondents submits that as per Regulation 10.1 of Jaipur Development Authority (Jaipur Region Building) Regulation 2000, the parking provisions were duly adhered and no vehicles belonging to owner of these residential building is allowed to stand outside the building premises. Thus, neither any irreparable injury nor any inconvenience is caused to the public at large and allegations of the petitioner in this regard are incorrect and baseless. .5.That the averment made in Para 5 of the writ petition are denied. It is submitted that the measurements of Plot No. 165 is 389.24 Sq. Yards. It is also incorrect on the part of the petitioner to allege that 16 flats have been constructed whereas in fact, only 6 residential units were constructed. However, the present writ petition has been filed belatedly after 010.2004 which clearly shows ulterior motive of petitioner behind it. The set back norms have been followed and no violations have been committed. As regards, sewerage is concerned, the demanded amount has been deposited with Jaipur Development Authority and Plot No 165 is connected with sewerage line. As regards, fire and other facilities are concerned, it is submitted that the fire safety provisions are necessary only in case of multi-storey building. This being not .a multi-storey building, the fire safety provisions are not attracted to this building. The other facilities like electricity, water connection, boring, parking, plantation etc. have been provided in this building and occupiers are peacefully enjoying it. The allegation with regard to inconvenience to public at large and to the residents of nearby areas is incorrect and baseless. Thus, the building was perfectly as per the provisions of Building Regulations 2000 and all basic facilities have been provided. No irregularity has been committed in the construction on the land. 6. The allegation with regard to inconvenience to public at large and to the residents of nearby areas is incorrect and baseless. Thus, the building was perfectly as per the provisions of Building Regulations 2000 and all basic facilities have been provided. No irregularity has been committed in the construction on the land. 6. That the averments made in Para 6 of the writ petition are denied. As stated above, Plot No. 166, 167 and 168 were allowed to be reconstituted vide Jaipur Development Authority order dated 24.02.2004 (Annexure-3) and thereafter these three plots become reconstituted for the purpose of construction. 7. That the averments made in Para 7 and 8 of the writ petition are denied. After reconstitution of Plot No. 166, 167 and 168, fresh set backs have been prescribed by the Jaipur Development Authority which is evident from site plan (Annexure-4). On east side of these plots, there is a 40 ft. wide road on which plot is having an opening of 38.6“. Thus, it is wrong on the part of petitioner to allege that there is no opening towards east side. Whereas towards North and West side of these plots, there is 30 ft. wide road and thus by raising construction, no inconvenience is caused to residents of the area. 8. That the averments made in Para 9 of the writ petition are denied. The construction of building on reconstituted Plot No. 166, 167 and 168 was undertaken by the owner of the plots only after approval of building plan by Jaipur Development Authority. It is relevant to mention here that building plans submitted by the owner of Plot No. 166 to 168 were found in order and placed in the meeting of Building Plan Committee-II. The Building Plan Committee in its meeting dated 15.06.2004 at agenda Item No. 33.19 approved the FAR 1.2 and directed the owner of plots to submit fresh plans. The fresh building plans were submitted to the Jaipur Development Authority but Jaipur Development Authority again objected about FAR vide their letter dated 09.07.2005, therefore, again fresh plans were submitted on 09.07.2004. On submission of fresh plans, Jaipur Development Authority vide letter dated 22.07.2004 issued demand letter asking owner of plots to deposit building permission fee and security fee in all amounting to Rs. 77,843/-. On submission of fresh plans, Jaipur Development Authority vide letter dated 22.07.2004 issued demand letter asking owner of plots to deposit building permission fee and security fee in all amounting to Rs. 77,843/-. The owner of plots in compliance of demand letter dated 22.07.2004 had deposited the demanded amount and informed the Jaipur Development Authority. The plot owners had also submitted required undertaking and thereafter Jaipur Development Authority had released approved building plans. The copy of decision of BPC IInd dated 15.06.2004, copy of letter of Jaipur Development Authority dated 09.07.2004, letter of plot owners dated 07.07.2004 copy of demand letter dated 22.07.2004 copy of letter of plot owners to Jaipur Development Authority dated 22.07.2004, copy of challan dated 22.07.2004 and approved building plans alongwith covering letter dated 27.07.2004 are enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-R3/12 to R3/18 respectively. 9. That the averments made in Para 10 and 11 of the writ petition are denied. It is submitted that the building plans were approved and released on 27.07.2004, thereafter construction was started by plot owners on reconstituted Plot No. 166, 167 and 168 in the month of September, 2004, structure of basement, still and ground floor already stands completed and first floor is under construction. The approved plans contained a parking provision where provision for 10 car parking and 18 scooter parking has been shown. The plot owners had adhered to set back and no violation has been committed in this regard. The total permission which has been granted by Jaipur Development Authority is for basement + still + 4 storeys and total height which has been permitted is 15 Mtr. Thus, this building is also not above 15 Mtr. height and permission to it has been validly granted by Jaipur Development Authority under Jaipur Development Authority (Jaipur Region Building) Regulation 2000 and no illegality and irregularity has been committed in this regard. The representation submitted by the petitioner is baseless and factually incorrect and requires no action in this regard. .10. That the averment made in Para 12 of the writ petition are denied. The allegation of the petitioner in this para are baseless and factually incorrect. On account of construction of building, no inconvenience is caused because building is being constructed as per parameters available to the plot under building bye-laws. .10. That the averment made in Para 12 of the writ petition are denied. The allegation of the petitioner in this para are baseless and factually incorrect. On account of construction of building, no inconvenience is caused because building is being constructed as per parameters available to the plot under building bye-laws. The question of causing any inconvenience or danger to life and any loss to other residents of the locality does not arise. The construction of building cannot tantamount to be hazardous to the public at large. It is settled principle of law that building is governed by building regulation and till any violations are made, the question of .inconvenience or nuisance to the locality does not arise. In the present case, the building has been constructed in accordance with norms, rules and regulations. Neither building constructed on Plot No. 165, nor building under construction on Plot No. 166 to 168 is having height of more than 15 Mtrs. Thus, they cannot be termed as multistoreyed building. Hence, plot owners are not constructing any multistoreyed building in a residential locality. As regards basic amenities are concerned, it is submitted that complete parking place has been provided and open space all around building has been left for facilities. In the present case, the provisions of fire preventions are not applicable because provisions of fire preventions are only required in a multistoreyed building. 11. That the averments made in Para 13 of the writ petition are denied in the manner it has been stated. It is true that for a multistorey building, minimum size of the plot has been prescribed in building bye-laws, however, in the present case, building constructed by plot owners is not above 15 Mtr. height on Plot No. 165 as well as on reconstituted Plot No. 166 to 168, thus the question of plot size has got no relevancy in the present matter. The allegation of connivance and joint hands with the Jaipur Development Authority is also baseless and wrong. The building is not owned by Non petitioner No. 3, who has never exercised their any influence for approval of building plans. The allegation about prevent of light, air and water including easement right is also baseless. The allegation of connivance and joint hands with the Jaipur Development Authority is also baseless and wrong. The building is not owned by Non petitioner No. 3, who has never exercised their any influence for approval of building plans. The allegation about prevent of light, air and water including easement right is also baseless. It is a matter of common knowledge that in residential areas when buildings are constructed near to other building, such allegations are being raised but that could only be allowed to be entertained if the person who has undertaken construction has violated basic parameters of the building. In the present case, no basic parameters of the building has been violated and, therefore, the allegation of the petitioner is without any merit. 12. That the averments made in Para 14 of the writ petition are denied. The width of the road in front of plot in dispute is 40 Ft. and constructions have been permitted by Jaipur Development Authority. If the petitioner has got any grievance about permission than they can file appeal under Section 17(4) of Jaipur Development Authority Act. The allegation of the petitioner that plot owners had constructed building on Plot No. 165 upto 1 + 4 is factually incorrect and baseless. The construction of the building is only ground + 2 storeys and, therefore this PIL has got no merit and deserves to be rejected. 13. That the averments made in Para 15 of the writ petition are denied. The Non petitioner No. 3 has got no connection in respect of construction of building on Plot No. 166, 167 and 168 as he is not owner of the property. The plot owners whose details are given above in the reply had undertaken construction of building. The building is under construction as per approved building plans which is for basement + still + 4 storeys. Therefore, permission which has been granted by Jaipur Development Authority is perfectly justified in law. The answering respondents also submits that it is not a multistoreyed building and by construction of such building no nuisance, annoyance, inconvenience will be caused to the petitioners and other residents of the area. 10.14. That the averments made in Para 16 of the writ petition are denied. The sewerage charges have already been deposited by plot owners. The answering respondents also submits that it is not a multistoreyed building and by construction of such building no nuisance, annoyance, inconvenience will be caused to the petitioners and other residents of the area. 10.14. That the averments made in Para 16 of the writ petition are denied. The sewerage charges have already been deposited by plot owners. The Jaipur Development Authority has already laid sewerage line and Plot No. 165 to 168 are connected with sewerage line. Thus, there is a proper sewerage system and the apprehension of inconvenience to public at large is without any merit. When there is a proper drainage systems, roads etc. are in existence, the attitude of hygienic conditions will remain uneffected. 15.That the averments made in Para 17 of the writ petition are denied. The allegation of connivance with JDA is baseless and there is no foundation of such vague allegation in the writ petition. The construction of the building has been undertaken by plot owners by following due process of law. The correspondence of Jaipur Development Authority with plot owners clearly reveals that Jaipur Development Authority has carefully considered the plans of plot owner and at all stages, objections have been raised which has been cured by plot owners and it is only thereafter the permission was accorded, therefore, the action of Jaipur Development Authority and plot owners cannot be termed as arbitrary, mala fide and against the basic provisions of law. 16. That the averments made in Para 18 of the writ petition are denied. It is submitted that in cases of multistoreyed building where violations of basic parameters have been made by person/builder. In such cases, the High Court had issued directions but in the present case the building constructed or under construction is not above 15 Mtrs. height and cannot be called as multi-storeyed building. Further no violations have been made by answering respondent in respect of given parameters, therefore, no interference is required by this Honble Court. 17. That the averments made in Para 19 of the writ petition are denied. As stated above, it is not a multi-storey building. The newspaper cutting relates to multi-storey building in various colonies. However these are buildings having height not above 15 Mtrs. Thus, these are not multi-storeyed buildings and on wrong facts these Public Interest Litigation has been filed before this Honble Court. As stated above, it is not a multi-storey building. The newspaper cutting relates to multi-storey building in various colonies. However these are buildings having height not above 15 Mtrs. Thus, these are not multi-storeyed buildings and on wrong facts these Public Interest Litigation has been filed before this Honble Court. The answering respondent is not aware about other colonies and other buildings. However, the facts of the present case are altogether different. These buildings are duly approved by Jaipur Development Authority and on wrong and vague allegations, the writ petition has been filed which deserves to be dismissed. 18. That the averments made in Para 20 of the writ petition are denied. The plot owners are not raising construction of multi-storey residential building. To the contrary, the height of the building is not above 15 Mtrs. and the building plans alongwith parking plans have been duly approved by Jaipur Development Authority. The construction on Plot No. 166 to 168 has already been started and in case of any violation, Jaipur Development Authority can issue notice and has got power to rectify the violations in construction of buildings. The allegation about submitting false declaration or misrepresentation to Jaipur Development Authority is also baseless and wrong, hence denied. 19. That the averments made in Para 22 of the writ petition are denied. Petitioner cannot be allowed to raise other arguments at the time of hearing. 20. That the averments made in Para 23 are formal and require no comments. 21. That the averments made in Para 24 are denied. It is a case where Jaipur Development Authority has granted building permission and concerned persons have undertaken construction of building in accordance with building parameters provided and approved, while granting building permission. In case, petitioners are aggrieved against approval of building plans, then they have got alternate and efficacious remedy under Section 17(4) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act and, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable and deserved to be rejected. 3. In reply in the preliminary objections, the respondent No. 3 submits that respondent No. 3 has nothing to do with Plot No. 165 to 168, situated in Krishan Nagar, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur. The concerned owners of the plot are not made party, therefore, this writ petition should be dismissed on this ground alone. 3. In reply in the preliminary objections, the respondent No. 3 submits that respondent No. 3 has nothing to do with Plot No. 165 to 168, situated in Krishan Nagar, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur. The concerned owners of the plot are not made party, therefore, this writ petition should be dismissed on this ground alone. In the reply it has also been said that the sanctioned plan has been approved by the JDA and thereafter construction has been raised and plan has been approved by JDA as per the provisions of the JDA Act/Rules. 4. Mr. Garg submits that they have given a representation, but their representation (Annexure-2) has not been disposed of . 5. Considering the aforesaid facts, we see no substance in this writ petition. Consequently the writ petition stands dismissed at admission stage. 6. Since, the writ petition has been dismissed, the stay application connected therewith does not survive and the same is also rejected. 7. However, the JDA is directed to dispose of the representation (Annexure-2) of the petitioner, if on record, within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.