Narendra Kumar Neotia Vs Ranchi Municipal Corporation through Its Municipal Commissioner

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27021-DB )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 687 of 2023

---------

Narendra Kumar Neotia, S/o Late Shriram Neotia, R/o Neotia Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Lalpur, District- Ranchi, presently residing at Flat No. 3804, Block-3, 8^th Floor, Sri Ram Garden, Kanke Road, P.S.- Gonda, P.O.- Ranchi University, District- Ranchi through his Power of Attorney Holder namely, Aakhileshwar Karmali, S/o Surjan Karmali, R/o Village- Chipudag, P.S. Petarwar, Ulgada, DistrictBokaro, Jharkhand, presently residing at Kokar, P.O.GPO, P.S.- Sadar, District- Ranchi. … … Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, through its Municipal Commissioner, Kutchery Road, P.O.- GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi.

¶7

2. The Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, Kutchery Road, P.O.- GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi. … … Respondents

¶8

---------

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶10

For the Appellant : Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate Mr. Shivam Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. L.C.N. Shahedeo, Advocate Mr. Yash Raj Gupta, Advocate

¶11

08/08.09.2025 Heard Mr. Rohitashya Roy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Yash Raj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Ranchi Municipal Corporation.

¶12

This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 3789 of 2022, in which, the challenge made by the writ-petitioner/appellant to the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/- on account of some deviation and making temporary construction has been rejected.

¶13

Submission has been advanced by Mr. Rohitashya Roy, learned counsel appearing for the writpetitioner/appellant that the deviation which was found was with respect to 6.59% in the plinth covered area and which was within the condonable limit of 20% in terms of

¶14

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27021-DB )

¶15

the Building Bylaws. It has further been submitted that some temporary structure was found to have been constructed in the parking area which the RRDA authorities could have removed themselves or could have asked the writ-petitioner/appellant to remove and in fact without any rational basis an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- has been fixed as a penalty which the appellant without prejudice to his rights has already deposited pursuant to the dismissal of the writ application. Mr. Roy has also copiously referred to Section 428 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 while submitting that the fine amount ranges from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/- depending on the breach/deviation which has occurred in the construction of the building but the said fact has not at all been considered by the authorities concerned and he has further reiterated that the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/imposed as a fine amount is without any proper reasonings.

¶16

Mr. Yash Raj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Ranchi Municipal Corporation has defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 3789 of 2022 while submitting that no sanction was taken prior to making the deviations which was contrary to the provisions of Section 428 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011. Mr. Gupta has also referred to the impugned order in the writ application dated 05.10.2017 passed in U.C. Case No. 127 of 2016, in which, an appropriate consideration of the deviation and the temporary structure which was constructed by the writ-petitioner/appellant has been noticed and consequently a penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/- has been imposed upon the writ-petitioner/appellant.

¶17

The factual aspects of the case reveal that prior to the construction of a building over the land belonging to

¶18

-2-

¶19

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27021-DB )

¶20

the writ-petitioner he had got building plans sanctioned from Ranchi Regional Development Authority which was the then competent authority vide B.C. Case No. 1135/2003. The building plan was sanctioned for basement, ground floor and six upper floors (B+G+6). An inspection of the building was carried out, in which, it was found that there was no deviation in the front and rear setback of the building and the height of the building was also found to be in terms of the sanctioned plan but there was a deviation in the plinth area to the extent of 20.05 square meter which comes to 6.59%. The inspecting team had also found certain encroachments in the front and rear setbacks which was causing obstacle in the parking of vehicles. Based on the report of the inspecting team of the RRDA, an unauthorized construction case being U.C. Case No. 127/2016 was instituted against the writ-petitioner, in which, he had appeared and filed a show cause before the respondent no. 2 who on consideration of the same had passed an order on 05.10.2017 imposing a penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/upon the writ-petitioner/appellant. Being aggrieved with the order dated 05.10.2017 passed in U.C. Case No. 127/2016 the writ-petitioner/appellant had preferred an appeal before the appellate tribunal which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 34/2017 which however was dismissed vide order dated 29.06.2022 which has subsequently constrained the writ-petitioner/appellant to move this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3789 of 2022 which was dismissed vide order dated 28.08.2023 by the learned Single Judge and which is the order impugned to the present appeal.

¶21

A perusal of the deviation which has been brought on record reveals that so far as the front and rear setback are concerned, there has been no deviations and in

¶22

-3-

¶23

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27021-DB )

¶24

fact the deviations which have been found are related to the plinth area wherein 6.59% of deviation was found and the condonable limit admittedly is 20% which in fact would mean that the deviation which has been caused was within the condonable limit. So far as the parking space is concerned, there appears to be some temporary structures which also finds mention in the report dated 07.01.2015 in B.C. No. 1135 of 2003. At this juncture, we me refer to Section 428 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, which reads as under:

¶25

“428. Construction of building in contravention of building regulation-Any building or structure of permanent nature which has been constructed or construction has commenced in contravention or breach or deviation of building regulation shall be liable to be demolished. Provided that the owner or occupier or any person responsible for construction of a building or structure of permanent nature or commencement of construction in contravention, breach, or deviation of building regulation shall further be liable to pay a penalty of minimum of one lakh rupees which may extend up to ten lakhs rupees, depending upon size of the building or structure and extent of deviation:

¶26

Provided further that the penalty under this section shall be in addition to any other fine provided under this Act including fine for compounding as may be provided under building regulation. ”

¶27

The provision of Section 428 of Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 clearly reveals that in case of any deviation the authority concerned has the power to impose a penalty of a minimum of Rs. 1,00,000/- which may extend up to Rs. 10,00,000/- depending upon the size of the building or structure and the extent of deviation.

¶28

As we have noticed in the order dated 05.10.2017 passed in U.C. Case No. 127 of 2016 by the respondent no. 2 though the factual aspect of the deviations have been discussed though not to a great extent but at the same

¶29

-4-

¶30

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27021-DB )

¶31

time a penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/- has been imposed. This imposition of penalty without being supported by any definite reasoning seems contrary to the proviso to Section 428 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 as it has clearly been demarcated in the said proviso that the penalty amount shall depend upon the size of the building or structure and the extent of deviation. As we have noticed above, the extent of deviation as per the report of the inspecting team reveals that the same was within the condonable limit of 20% and so far as the structures in the parking area are concerned, the same was not permanent in nature and could have been removed either by the authorities of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation or by the appellant/writ-petitioner himself if asked to do so.

¶32

The deviations which have been noted in the report of the inspecting team does not at all indicate that they were to such an extent which could have led to imposition of a penalty amount of Rs. 8,00,000/-. The learned Single Judge has not appropriately considered the fact that the deviation was within the condonable limit and another factor which has led to the dismissal of the writ application seems to be the non-deposit of the penalty amount though after the dismissal of the writ application the penalty amount has been deposited without prejudice to the rights of the writ-petitioner as submitted by Mr. Rohitashya Roy, learned counsel appearing for the writpetitioner/appellant.

¶33

In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we set aside the order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 3789 of 2022 and consequently the order dated 05.10.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 in U.C. Case No. 127 of 2016 as well as the order dated 29.06.2022 passed by the appellate tribunal, Ranchi

¶34

-5-

¶35

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27021-DB )

¶36

Regional Development Authority, Ranchi in Misc. Appeal No. 34 of 2017 are also hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 2 (Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi, Municipal Corporation, Ranchi) to consider the issue afresh based on the provisions of Section 428 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 as well as the observations made by us as aforesaid and he shall after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ-petitioner/appellant pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶37

This appeal stands allowed.

¶38

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶39

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶40

A. Sanga/-

¶41

-6-

Narendra Kumar Neotia v. Ranchi Municipal Corporation through Its Municipal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Kumar Neotia v. Ranchi Municipal Corporation through Its Municipal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjita Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Salim Mian And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

MD Imran Alias MD Imran Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Satish Pradhan Alias Satyawan Pradhan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saif Mansuri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saul Kandulna Vs the State of Jharkhand