K. Nagmani Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors.

The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the order passed by the Superintending Engineer, Municipal Council, Sri Vijaya Puram, South Andaman vide order No. 6247 dated 26.12.2023 wherein the petitioners are directed to demolish the unauthorized construction within 30 days from the date of receipt of provisional order.

¶16

Mr. KMB Jayapal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.3 has passed impugned order without considering the building plan which was approved by Port Blair Municipal Council the then Municipal Board being building plan No. 962 dated 23.01.1991.

¶17

2

¶18

Mr. KMB Jayapal, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the inspection report dated 08.09.2023 wherein the Building Inspector has mentioned about the three buildings and as per the said report it is categorically mentioned that during the inspection it was found that no construction activities is going on at the site.

¶19

Mr. KMB Jayapal, submits that before the respondent No.3 the petitioners have filed their written notes of argument raising all the points, but the respondent No. 3 without taking into consideration to the written notes of argument submitted by the petitioners has passed the order impugned.

¶20

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned advocate appearing for the Municipal authorities submits that building plan which the petitioner is relying upon is not the plan with respect of the building of the petitioners. He submits that during inquiry it was found that the buildings were constructed by the petitioners without the sanction of building plan and accordingly respondent No.3 being the competent authority has passed the impugned order.

¶21

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Perused the materials on records.

¶22

This Court find that the petitioners are relying upon the building plan being No. 962 dated 23.01.1991. The authorities have submitted that building plan is not in connection with the alleged building which has been constructed without the sanction of the building plan. This

¶23

3

¶24

Court without going to the merit of the matter is of the view that in the writ jurisdiction it not possible for this Court to decide whether the buildings have been constructed in terms of the sanction building plan as relied by the petitioners or the buildings constructed by the petitioners are without the sanction of the building plan.

¶25

This Court also find that the respondent No.3 while passing impugned order has not considered whether the building plan which the petitioner has relied upon is connected with the said buildings or not. On the said ground only the impugned order is set aside and remanded the matter back to the Superintending Engineer, Port Blair Municipal Council for deciding the matter afresh. The Superintending Engineer, Port Blair Municipal Council is directed to consider the building plan relied by the petitioner and if necessary the Superintending Engineer may direct the concerned Building Inspector to cause a fresh inspection of the three buildings in presence of all parties by taking into consideration of the sanction plan which the petitioner is relied upon. After giving an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties the Superintending Engineer shall pass reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶26

This Court has not gone into the merit of the matter, the parties are at liberty to raise all the points before the Superintending Engineer at the time of hearing of the matter.

¶27

4

¶28

Accordingly, the writ petitions being WPA/82/2024 and WPA/83/2024 are disposed of.

¶29

( Krishna Rao, J. )

K. Nagmani v. the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Nagmani v. the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smti.Sohini Roy Vs the Lt.Governor and Ors.

P.Savitri Vs the Superintending Engineer and Anr.

Shri.Navneet Singh Chawla and Ors. Vs the Land Acquisition Collector (Adm)

Vijaya Kumari Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors.

Kamona Mondal and Ors. Vs Khagen Mondal and Ors.

Shri.Biswanath Mondal Vs Nil