Petitioner challenged the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation's order condoning excess construction by an adjacent neighbor via penalty. The court relied on building byelaws and a Government Resolution and dismissed the writ petition, refusing to interfere.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 W.P. 4372 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Writ Petition No.4372 of 2012
Suresh s/o Shyamlal Khandelwal. .. Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
And Others. .. Respondents.
Shri. R.K. Khandelwal, Advocate, for petitioner.
Shri. V.D. Godbharale, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri. S.N.Pagare, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
Shri. A.G. Talhar, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATE : 21st AUGUST 2012
PER COURT :
belonging to respondent No.4. The petitioner challenges
a communication made by the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, dated
2 W.P. 4372 of 2012
23-4-2012. Under the said communication the Municipal Corporation authorities had taken a decision to condone the excess construction on the side margin of the plot possessed by respondent No.4. The said construction was regularized by imposing penalty of Rs.4,09,400/-, which amount was deposited by the respondent No.4 with the Corporation on 16th April 2012.
“5. That, as regard contents of para No.17 I say and submit that, the excess construction of the petitioner No.4 came to be regularized on the basis of request made by respondent No.4 to the commissioner Municipal Corporation Aurangabad vide application dated 24/08/2010 and also request made in pursuance to the G.R. dated 22-09-2006 which provides for imposing one time premium for the area covered by allowing staircase, lobby, passages free of F.S.I. which means the area covered by staircase, lobby, passages will not be counted in the built up area of construction. The excess construction leaving less side margin of the respondent No.4 has been regularized by the Commissioner municipal Corporation Aurangabad on the basis of provision made under clause 6.6.(i) of the
3 W.P. 4372 of 2012
building byelaws and development control rules for Aurangabad Municipal Corporation by keeping intact the 9 meters width of the petitioners plot which is as per sanctioned layout. The clause 6.6.(i) provides as under.
“Permit any of the dimension prescribed by these byelaws to be modified provided the relaxation sought does not violate the health safety, fire safety, structural safety and public safety of inhabitants, the buildings and the neighborhood”
The respondent No.4 has deposited an amount of Rs. 4,09,400/- on 16/04/2012 in order to regularized the construction.
The copies of GR dated 22/09/2006 and building byelaws and development control rules for Aurangabad Municipal Corporation are annexed herewith and marked as Exh.R-I Colly.”
4 W.P. 4372 of 2012
exercising his power had regularized the construction made by the respondent No.4 on the side margin. Reliance is placed on clauses 6.6.(i) of the Building Bylaws and Development Control Rules framed for Aurangabad Municipal Corporation. Reliance is places on the Government Resolution dated 22nd September 2006.
8) The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/- (A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)
rsl
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction to set aside the Municipal Corporation's order regularizing excess construction involving side margin condonation.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Suresh s/o Shyamlal Khandelwal
The State of Maharashtra
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation
Respondent No.4
NARESH H PATIL
A.B. CHAUDHARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
