Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby the suit for permanent injunction, was partly decreed restraining the defendants from demolishing the construction, except in due course of law.
(2.) The plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the construction raised by the plaintiffs in the area of shop/booth Nos. 84-85, 86-87 situated at Mandi Township Ballabgarh, as shown in the site plan. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have sought the standard designs for construction of the shops in basement but none was provided and, therefore, the construction of basements, cannot be said to be illegal.
(3.) On 3.3.2005, this Court directed the respondents to inform this Court whether violations have been compounded with regard to construction of basements of other buildings in Faridabad in the year 1999 and thereafter. On 11.7.2006, a policy dated 8.2.2006 has been produced RSA No. 4768 of 2004 (2) wherein it has been provided that unauthorised construction of basements under the corridor of booths, shop-cum-flats, shop-cum-offices can be proposed to be compounded provided conditions as contained in earlier policy dated 24.10.2003 are complied with. One of the conditions that the level of the public corridors should be maintained as shown in the architectural control drawings.;