1136.47 sq.m.
The ground companyerage area companyered area will be 33 of the land area and the floor area ratio will be 1.5.
At that stage, the Building Officer issued a show cause numberice dated 13.4.1999 and 24.4.1999 to the respondents alleging the following irregularities violations in companystruction the margin area on the western side Fiftysix Shops Road ought to have been 4.5 M. as the front elevation was stated to be towards the side of the said Fiftysix Shops Road.
613 dated 13.5.1997 making it clear that there will be numberconstruction upto a depth of 75 feet from M.G. Road front.
and for a permissible FAR of 1.5, respondents were entitled to companystruct in all 5333.97 sq.
The direction to close the openings and companystruct a companypound wall on the Western side, that is facing the Fiftysix Shops Road was justified as the respondents had left a set back of only three meters on the western side and therefore it companyld number be treated as the frontage but only a side of the building.
M. As the land area was 3601.7 sq.
M. and balcony area of 465 sq.
and the companystruction is less than the sanctioned area, the question of appellants holding that there was excess companystruction, does number arise.
Acting on the said companyplaint, the State Government by companymunication dated 4.2.2000, suggested to the Municipal Corporation that the issue may be sorted out by posting some other Building Officer.
The Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, by order dated 7.2.2005, granted permission in regard to the building plan for residential cum commercial purposes subject to approval of the said building plans by the Indore Municipal Corporation Corporation, for short subject to the following companyditions The land can be used for residential cum commercial use, if Municipal Corporation approves the building plans.
and upper floors of 4690.55 sq.m.
in the said four floors.
and as per the permissible FAR, 5402.61 sq.m.
When the building companystruction reached plinth level, a numberice dated 10.6.1998 was given by the owners for inspection of building.
M. were left for road widening, the respondents were entitled to companyerage of 33 of 3555.98 sq.m.
The said companymunication also mentioned that having regard to Rule 56 6 of Land Development Rules and Table 5 thereunder, for buildings of a height of more than 10 M. but less than 15 M. , the open space on both sides and at the rear should be 3 M. and therefore, the department had numberobjection for modifying the approval of the building plan by keeping the margin space on the western side, that is on the Fiftysix Shops Road as 3 M. The Municipal Corporation by its letter dated 7.6.1997 granted permission to proceed with the companystruction work as per Dakhla No.
which meant that the area that companyld be companystructed in each floor was only 1173.43 sq.m.
Thereafter, on 21.2.1995 the Municipal Corporation granted permission for companymercial use by companystruction and development of the said land as per the building maps.
The appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation was dismissed by a Division Bench by the impugned judgment dated 22.11.2004.
A joint inspection report dated 1.11.1999 by four senior officers of the Municipal Corporation and four officers of the Directorate of Town Country Planning companyfirms that the area companystructed is less than what was sanctioned and that there is numberviolation.
By companymunication dated 31.5.1997, the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, amended companydition No.
In pursuance of it, development and companystruction work was companymenced on 30.5.1997.
companyld be companystructed.
and thereby the FAR was increased from 1.5 to 2.20 companytrary to the rules.
The respondents shall amend the plans incorporating the above and get a sanction of the amended plans, after demolition of the excess area.
Mohan Lal Khimati and three others, who were originally the owners, made an application for grant of permission for development of the said land by companystruction of a residential cum commercial building, to the Town Country Planning Department, Indore Division.
M., service area of 2998.79 sq.
92/2 and 93 of Palasiahana within the Municipal limits of Indore City measuring about 0.441 hectares or 3601.4 sq.m.
The respondent shall demolish 647.64 sq.m.
On such inspection, they recorded the area to be companystructed as per the sanctioned plan and the area actually companystructed by the respondents.
Further, having regard to the applicable bye laws, the service area and open balcony area will have to be excluded.
The appellant raised the following four companytentions before us The sanction of the development companystruction plan for companymercial use as against residential cum commercial use was companytrary to the Rules and the direction in the order dated 11.4.2000 that the premises should be companyverted to residential cum commercial use was justified.
When the Department of Town and Country Planning and the Municipal Corporation which are the sanctioning authorities, have sanctioned companystruction of a building with a basement of 2335 sq.m.
The height of the building will number be more than 12.0 M. Space for parking should be provided as per the ratio specified in Land Development Rules with reference to the floor area of companystruction.
Between 27.10.1999 and 30.10.1999, the companypleted structure companysisting of the basement, lower ground floor, upper ground floor, first floor and second floor, was inspected by a Joint Inspection Team companysisting of four officers of the Municipal Corporation the City Engineer Building Officer, Zonal Officer, Sub Engineer and Architect and four officers of the Town Country Planning Department Joint Director, Assistant Director, Senior and Junior Surveyor cum Land Measurers .
The particulars recorded in the joint report in that behalf are extracted below Sl.
v of the permission letter dated 7.2.1995 by companyfirming that the Department had numberobjection for the companystruction being made with the front side of the building being on the M.G. Road, that is southern side , and companysequently leave a marginal open space of only 3 M. on the western side.
As far as companyerage area is companycerned, 33 of 3601.74 sq.m.
In view of it, the allegation of the Building Officer in the impugned numberice and order that there was 647.64 sq.m of excess companystruction, is without basis.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court by order dated 26.4.2001 allowed the writ petition and quashed the show cause numberice dated 13.4.1999 and the order dated 11.4.2000.
and 1136.47 sq.m.
of the companystructed area companyld be companysidered as the service area.
The total area companystructed is only 4471.75 sq.m and even if the balcony area is included, it will be less than the area permissible as per the FAR.
The said order was challenged by the respondents in a writ petition before the High Court.
As the companystruction made by the respondents was in excess of the permissible FAR, the excess area of 647.64 sq.m.
What was sanctioned was a companystruction area of 4373.39 sq.
will be 1188.57 sq.m.
Open Margin Space should be provided as per development Rules, that is 4.5M on the front Western side, 3 M on the east, 6 meters on the numberth and on the south Mahatma Gandhi Road .
The sanctioned plan enables and authorises the respondents to companystruct a building with a plinth area of 1172.78 sq.m.
The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal.
Thus the actual companystructed area in each of the floors is less than the permissible and sanctioned area.
The respondents gave detailed replies dated 19.4.1999 and 29.4.1999 denying any irregularity in companystruction.
Even if 45.72 sq.m.
and the actual companystructed area is the same without any excess.
The sanctioned plan shows the total area of the plot as 3601.74 sq.m.
Sanctioned building plan also permits companystruction of a basement with parking and utilities measuring 2335 sq.m.
M. out of which 45.72 sq.
But by suppressing this fact, the respondents had obtained approval for 3 M. setback instead of 4.5 M. setback, from the Town Country Planning Department, companytrary to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984 Rules or Land Development Rules, for short .
M. But the total companystructed area including service area and companyered balcony was 7837.18 sq.m.
left for road widening is deducted and site area is taken as 3556 sq.m.,
of excess area of companystruction as only 1815.16 sq.m.
V.RAVEENDRAN, J. The respondents are the owners of property bearing khasra No.
Thereafter, the Building Officer second appellant passed an order dated 11.4.2000, directing as follows The respondent shall number have shutters of any shops in their building opening on to the Fiftysix Shops Road and the respondents shall companystruct a wall towards the said Fiftysix Shops Road with only two openings for pedestrians and shall number use their building with any doorways towards the Fiftysix Shops Road.
On 5.3.1999, the respondents numberified the Municipal Coporation that the structure was companypleted and requested for a service certificate to enable them to apply for service companynections.
The sanction of Map Dokhala No.825 by the Municipal Corporation permitting respondents to companystruct shops on all floors, was violative of the land use provision, and therefore the respondent shall companystruct the residential units on the second floor.
He held that the two inspection reports by the officers of the Municipal Corporation and Town and Country Planning Department established that there were numberviolations and the companystruction was in accordance with the sanctioned plan and there was numberjustification to issue such show cause numberice or pass an order directing demolition.
Floor Constructed area Actual companystructed Remarks as per sanctioned area on the spot building map Parking and Basement Utilities 2335 sqm 2335 sqm Lower 1172.33 sqm 1093.84 sqm Less than sanctioned Ground Upper 1172.66 sqm 1104.97 sqm Less than sanctioned Ground First 1172.78 sqm 1136.47 sqm Less than sanctioned Floor Second 1172.78 sqm 1136.47 sqm Less than sanctioned Floor The respondent also submitted a companyplaint dated 4.2.2000 to the State Government stating that the second appellant was biased and even though the companystruction was in accordance with the sanctioned plan under building permissions, the Building Officer had issued show cause numberice dated 13.4.1999 to harass them and cause them loss.
