Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Appearance: Mr Suren M Shah For vs Mr Amit J Shah For

High Court Of Gujarat|26 March, 2012

JUDGMENT / ORDER

: (Per B.C. Patel, J.) The Appeal is admitted on 21.6.2000.
It appears that in the instant case, the building is not constructed as per the original plan submitted to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. From the plan, it appears that the area of the plot is of 662 sq. metres and permitted built-up area on the ground floor is 198.60 sq. metres. As per the plan, if the building is constructed, there would be balance F.S.I. to the extent of 179.50 sq. metres. In disregard of the plan submitted to the Corporation, it seems that the builder has erected a building by shifting the pillar in such a way so as to increase the F.S.I. as mentioned and increased the area of 30%. By use of this method, even though the F.S.I. is increasing, it is within the permissible limits. The question is about maintaining 30% area. That is not being maintained.
It appears that by covering the galleries, F.S.I. is also increased. There was no permission granted for cellar, yet, the builder has carried out not only the work of cellar, but has covered the parking space so as to use for other purposes. So far as the hollow plinth meant for parking is concerned, it is reduced by construction, and thus, the existing construction is not as per the plan approved.
On behalf of the builder, it is stated that as per the advice of the Architect, the construction was carried out. The appellant is directed to remove the partition wall from the cellar at the place of parking. He is further directed to remove the construction carried out in hollow plinth so as to make it in conformity with the approved plan.
Grievance is made by one of the allottees that the Corporation, despite the issuance of notice to one of the occupants, has not taken any action. It is submitted that notice was issued under Section 268 of the B.P.M.C. Act on 31.1.1998 and no action was taken though in the notice, it was specifically stated that within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice, the occupier should stop use of the premises. The Corporation shall place before us the explanation as to why no action is taken in this matter.
S.O. to 20th September, 2000.
13th September, 2000 ( B.C. Patel, J. ) ( P.B. Majmudar, J. ) ***** (apj)
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Appearance: Mr Suren M Shah For vs Mr Amit J Shah For

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgmentDate
26 March, 2012