Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1825 (JHR)

Raj Shekhar v. State of Jharkhand

2018-08-13

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2018
ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for keeping in abeyance the order dated 10.07.2018 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi (respondent no.2) in U.C. Case no. 52 of 2015 whereby the respondent no.2 has ordered for sealing of some part of the petitioner’s building and has also ordered for demolition of the same as well as imposed fine of Rs.2,00,000/-, till the appeal preferred by the petitioners before the appellate authority i.e. Building Tribunal, Ranchi under “Section 436(3) of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 (in short to be referred as “the Act, 2011), being Misc. Appeal no. 39 of 2018, is heard. 2. By way of I.A. No. 7215 of 2018, the petitioners have sought direction for unsealing the portion of the petitioners’ building sealed on 06.08.2018 and to return the fine amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, realised by the respondent- Ranchi Municipal Corporation (R.M.C.), vide Demand Draft no. 483096 dated 06.08.2018 drawn on Canara Bank, as the same was done within two days of communication of the order dated 10.07.2018, passed in U.C. Case No. 52 of 2015, to the petitioners. 3. For the reasons stated in the present interlocutory application, the aforesaid prayer is allowed to be treated as part of the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the builders of the “Maa Enclave Apartment” Cheshire Home Road, Bariyatu, Ranchi. The petitioner no. 1 entered into a development agreement with the owner of the land in question namely Mrs. Vidyawati Devi, vide development agreement dated 02.12.2006. As per the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the owner of the land was supposed to get the sanction plan of the building approved from R.R.D.A/R.M.C. Said Vidyawati Devi had already applied for sanction of G+3 building plan, which was sanctioned on 02.11.2004 in B.C. No. 448 of 2004. Thereafter, in pursuance of the agreement dated 02.12.2006, Vidyawati Devi further applied for modification of the said sanctioned plan which was numbered as B.C. Case no. Thereafter, in pursuance of the agreement dated 02.12.2006, Vidyawati Devi further applied for modification of the said sanctioned plan which was numbered as B.C. Case no. 117 of 2006, but the outcome of the said sanction for modification could not be known as the documents of the same were seized by the C.B.I. However, Vidyawati Devi assured the petitioner regarding the approval of the modification but in absence of any valid documents, the petitioners asked her to re-apply before the R.M.C. Thereafter, Vidyawati Devi once again approached the R.M.C. and applied for sanction of the modified G+4 plan on 08.08.2012. The petitioners, who were in peaceful possession of the said property, received a notice dated 08.05.2015 issued by the respondent-RMC asking to submit sanction plan of the under construction building over the land in question. The petitioners thereafter tried to ascertain the status of the last approval plan for modification submitted on 08.08.2012 and they came to know that the said sanction plan was rejected by the respondent-R.M.C. on the ground of no parking facility. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in view of clause 7.2 of the Ranchi Planning Standards & Building Byelaws 2002 (as was applicable during the relevant period), the application for sanction of the revised map submitted before the RRDA in the year 2006 is deemed to have been sanctioned in the year 2006 itself after lapse of 60 days from the date of filing of the said application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 10.07.2018 has passed the order for demolition of the flats constructed in the G+4 floor of the apartment as well as the rooms constructed on the 5th floor and the parking area of the apartment. A penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- has also been imposed by the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 10.07.2018. It is also submitted that U.C. Case no. 52 of 2015 was finally heard by the respondent no. 2 on 30.01.2018, however no order was passed on the said date. Suddenly, the officers of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation came to the apartment in question on 04.08.2018 for executing the said order dated 10.07.2018 passed by the respondent no.2 and on that day only, the petitioners came to know about passing of such order by the respondent no.2. 2 on 30.01.2018, however no order was passed on the said date. Suddenly, the officers of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation came to the apartment in question on 04.08.2018 for executing the said order dated 10.07.2018 passed by the respondent no.2 and on that day only, the petitioners came to know about passing of such order by the respondent no.2. Aggrieved by the said order dated 10.07.2018 passed by the respondent no.2, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Building Tribunal, Ranchi 06.08.2018, which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 2018. However, the said appeal is not being heard by the Building Tribunal as the same is presently non-functional due to lack of quorum. 7. Mr. L.C.N. Sahdeo, learned counsel for the Ranchi Municipal Corporation submits that the order dated 10.07.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 is completely justified and the same has been passed after due consideration of the facts involved in the case. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioners have preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 2018 before the Building Tribunal, Ranchi against the order dated 10.07.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 and the same is not being heard as the Building Tribunal is presently non-functional due to lack of quorum, the respondent- Ranchi Municipal Corporation is directed not to demolish the part of the apartment in pursuance of the order dated 10.07.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 in U.C. Case no. 52 of 2015 till the said appeal preferred by the petitioners is taken up by the Building Tribunal, Ranchi for the first time. 9. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. 10. I.A. No. 7215 of 2018 is also accordingly disposed of. Petition disposed of.