D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 15.3.2007 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 1335 of 2007, whereby the petition of the petitioner was dismissed.
(2.) THE appellant herein, are building contractors. For the purpose of constructing multi storied building complex, on a portion of plot No. 1291 under khata No. 40 in Mauza Ulliyan, petitioner submitted a proposed building plan to the Special Officer, Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee, Jamshedpur (respondent No. 3). The proposed building plan as submitted by the petitioner, was approved and communicated to the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 by his order dated 29.12.2004. On obtaining the approval, petitioner commenced construction work. While construction was in progress, petitioner received a letter bearing No. 37 dated 6.1.2006 issued under the signature of the respondent No. 3, directing him to stop further construction and to demolish certain unauthorised construction which was constructed on R.C. C. columns beyond the approved area for construction. Consequent upon the failure on the part of the petitioner to raise objection against the aforesaid notice, a further notice No. 72 under Section 193 read with Sec. 359 of Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act dated 20.1.2006 was served upon the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 informing him that an authorized agent of the respondent No. 3 will go to the premises and perform all acts of execution and demolition of the unauthorized construction. Meanwhile, one Anil Kumar preferred a writ application before this Court vide W.P.(C) No. 649 of 2006 with a prayer for restraining the present petitioner from making any construction of the multi storied building. By order dated 26.4.2006 passed in the aforesaid WP(C) No. 649 of 2006, further construction of the building was stayed. The aforesaid writ application was disposed of by order dated 25.9.2006 (annexure -4) directing the respondent No. 1, namely, Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee, Jamshedpur to take final decision in the matter within two weeks' from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order and thereafter, petitioner was to proceed in accordance with the final decision of the respondent No. 1 in the matter of construction of the building. The petitioner thereafter, filed, his letter of request dated 11.10.2006 before the Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur with a copy thereof to the respondent No. 2 to take final decision in the matter in the light of the aforesaid order passed by this Court. On being called upon along with all the documents of the land and the copy of the approved building plan by the respondent No. 3, petitioner submitted all relevant documents and was told by the respondent No. 3 that there were certain minor deviations and, therefore, petitioner should file an application for correction of the same. In response, petitioner filed their letter dated 12.1.2007 requesting the respondent No. 3 for regularisation of the construction if there were any deviation. Further, by order dated 421 dated 9.2.2007 (Annexture -7), respondent No. 3 directed the petitioner to demolish such portion of the construction as was purportedly made in deviation of the sanctioned plan without leaving appropriate vacant area. It was pointed out in the order (Annexure -7) that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WP((C) No. 649 of 2006, an inquiry was conducted by Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer by making spot inspection of the construction carried out by the petitioner and it was found in the inquiry that whereas, according to the approved plan, out of total land measuring 70 ft. in length and 41 ft in width, length of 10 ft. in front and 10 ft. in back was to be left vacant and similarly, on each side of the building, vacant space of 5 ft. was to be left, but unauthorised construction was made extending 31 ft. in front and 4 ft. in back and space left on between both sides was 1 to 4 ft. only and since the extended deviation cannot possibly be regularized, even by payment of regularisation fee, petitioner was directed to demolish the extended construction. Against the aforesaid order dated 9.2.2007, petitioner had preferred writ application vide WP(C) No. 1335 of 2007. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ application with following observations: In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing Letter No. 421 dated 9th February 2007, contained in Annexure -5, whereby the petitioner's application for regularising the deviation of the construction has been rejected and he has been asked to remove the construction, which has been made deviating from the sanctioned plan. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and going through the records, I find that the petitioner has applied for regularisation of the deviation of the construction, which was not made in accordance with the sanctioned plan. His application was considered and the help of technical experts and legal experts was also taken and after due consideration, the prayer of the petitioner has been refused. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the grievance of the petitioner has been duly considered and that reasoned order has been passed for not accepting the prayer for regularisation of the deviation of the construction made by the petitioner. I find no arbitrariness in the impugned order. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Against this order, the instant L.P.A has been filed by the petitioner. When present appeal was taken up for hearing, learned Counsel for the appellant sought a short adjournment for seeking instruction regarding the deviation made in the front side of the building. While granting adjournment vide order dated 10.5.2007, this Court had observed that if the appellant demolishes the front portion, if already constructed and/or rectifies the deviation, if under construction, then this Court may consider the deviation made by him so far both sides of the building is concerned.
(3.) PURSUANT to the above order, the petitioner filed supplementary affidavit expressing his willingness to demolish the front portion which, is under construction. It was explained that Balcony was constructed over the R.C.C. pillars of the building and the same would be demolished.;