Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.
(2.) These two writ petitions preferred by the petitioners involve common question of facts and law and are thus being decided together by this single order.
(3.) The petitioners herein claim to have purchased one shop each through registered sale deeds after paying valid consideration in the stilted basement of the multi-storied building known as 'Divya Jyoti Apartment' constructed by the respondent No.4 M/s. Salibhadra Builders. The petitioners claim to be carrying on their respective business in the shops lawfully purchased by them but to their utter shock and surprise, they received notices under Section 91A of the Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the UIT Act') intimating them that construction of the shoping in question had been raised in contravention to the provisions of the UIT Act as well as the masterplan and so also, against the sanctioned scheme of the Trust and that the construction permission granted by the Trust had also been violated as well. Each petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the illegally constructed shops should not be demolished in exercise of powers conferred upon the Tehsildar, UIT by Section 91A of the UIT Act. The petitioners allegedly approached the respondent No.4 builder and made an inquiry about the predicament faced by them owing to the notice issued by the UIT on which, they were perportedly informed that the construction had been raised strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan and that the UIT had never raised any objection regarding the shops sold to the petitioners which were lawfully constructed way back in the year 1998-1999 in accordance with the explicit permission granted by the UIT. The petitioners further bank upon an application filed by the respondent No.4 Company before the UIT stating that the area required for parking in the basement of the building was only 9368 sq. fts whereas, a total area of 29000 sq. fts. i.e. an excess of 10000 sq. fts. Area was available in the building for providing parking to its residents. The ten shops which were constructed in the basement area were covering a carpet area of about 1800 to 2000 ft. only and did not exceed 3% of the total FAR which could be lawfully used for commercial purposes. The builder company approached the UIT and agreed to pay the applicable conversion charges and requested that the 10 shops constructed in the basement of the building be regularised in terms of Rajasthan (Urban Area Buildings) Regulations, 2000 (herein after referred to as 'the 'Building Regulations'). The petitioners claimed to have appeared before the Tehsildar, UIT, Udaipur raising an objection that they being bonafide purchasers of the shops in question from the respondent No.4 being the builder of the multi-storied complex, were entitled to protection of their proprietary rights on the shops in question moreso when the builder had expressed a willingness to pay the applicable charges for conversion of the alleged deviation in the building from residential to commercial which was otherwise trivial. On these grounds, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the impugned notices and also seeking a direction to the respondents to convert and regularise the shops of the petitioners as per the Building Regulations.;