Apartment in stilt floor meant for parking
sridhar pasumarthy
(Querist) 25 October 2011
This query is : Resolved
Dear experts,
A person purchased a residential apartment, which was constructed in the stilt floor, without knowing the fact that it was meant for parking (as per the approved plan) in the year 2003 through a registered sale deed.
Property is situated in Andhra Pradesh.
He has been paying municipal tax since 2003.
Now the problem is that one of the apartment owners in the same building, who purchased one year prior to him i.e. in the year 2002, recently filed a writ of mandamus arraying the Municipality as 1st respondent and this person as 2nd respondent seeking an order to demolish the 2nd respondent's apartment, as it was un-authorised construction.
My question is the writ petitioner, who remained silent for such a long period, has such a remedy?
Suggest any remedy to the 2nd respondent with citations.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 25 October 2011
the cause of action for 2nd respondent is against the builder who has sold the unauthorised apartment .
as far as muncipal authroities are concerned if the apartment is unauthorised and contrary to sanctioned plan the court will direct demolition of unuathroised apartment .
the flat owner can sue builder for recovery of amount paid for purchase of flat . in addition he can file criminal complaint against builder for cheating etc
sridhar pasumarthy
(Querist) 25 October 2011
Dear experts,
He along with family members will become shelterless, if any order passed against him. Pls reply.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 25 October 2011
MLA’s illegal structure razed
(Hindustan Times, Mumbai Edition of 26-01-2011, page no. 10)
The municipal corporation, on Monday, demolished a structure erected by Congress Member of Legislative Assembly Jagannath Shetty, inside a plot marked as a playground. Officials from the local civic ward demolished an under-construction podium in Dalvi ground near Jain Society in Sion. The civic officials said that Shetty, had last week, sought permission for the construction of the podium. However, the ward office denied it saying that the plot was a playground and any construction on it is not permissible.
The Bombay high court has asked the civic body to demolish all illegal structures across the city. The municipal commissioner, too, had said the same last week.
Sanjay Kurhade, assistant municipal commissioner, F-North ward said, “The construction had just begun and we found some materials kept there.” Local children play on the ground and a school in the vicinity also uses it for its activities. Shetty denied knowledge of the incident. “I do not know anything about this,” he said and disconnected the phone.
Meanwhile, six residential structures and one ground plus one chawl in Pascalwadi and Patelwadi in Madh-Marve area of Malad were demolished on Tuesday. These structures were in the No-Development Zone and were razed using civic machinery. Three engineers, supervisory and the local police were roped in for the drive. The structures were occupying more than 2,000 sq ft areas.
comment : Seems that the BMC apathy can be corrected somewhat, using the HC jurisdiction.
Further, the HC order is a blanket order for Mumbai City, BUT the BMC shall sleep over it after the instant issue.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 25 October 2011
the courts have to come down with heavy hand on illegal construction . these cannot be regularised but demolished
ajay sethi
(Expert) 25 October 2011
Raze "ALL" illegal structures : Mumbai HC
( Hindustan Times, Mumbai, January 19, 2011 )
While hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking orders to demolish an ICSE school in Malad due to irregularities in its construction, the Bombay high court ordered the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to pull down ALL illegal and unauthorised constructions in the city. The high court has directed the civic body to identify all such structures in the city, starting with P-North ward , and complete its survey within a week’s time.
The court has also directed BMC commissioner Subodh Kumar to state, on affidavit, the civic body’s action plan to remove unauthorised structures.
“We have to ensure proper enforcement of civic laws,” said the division bench of justice PB Majmudar and justice Amjad Syed. “It is high time the BMC ensured no unauthorised constructions come up in the city. There has to be some civic sense, or it will become difficult for law-abiding citizens to live here,” the judges said, while pulling up BMC officials for allowing Balaji International School in Malad to add six illegal floors to its 11-storey structure.
The judges expressed concern over the tendency of some builders to construct unauthorised floors and to encroach upon open spaces and slum dwellers’ homes. “These builders would not bother about the common citizens’ discomfort,” the judges observed. They then asked BMC counsel AY Sakhare, “But, what about you?” The judges insisted that the civic chief put his house in order first to ensure no illegal or unauthorised construction came up within city limits.
Meanwhile, the Balaji International School has challenged the civic body’s action of demolishing an electricity sub-station, necessary for ensuring adequate power supply to the school, constructed by Reliance Energy on a plot reserved for a playground. What irked the judges in the matter was that the school went on to construct an 11-storey structure despite BMC’s sanction for a five-storey building, and a subsequent stop-work notice. The civic body, however, later regularised the building following the state government’s decision to grant FSI of 4 for the school building.
sridhar pasumarthy
(Querist) 25 October 2011
Sir,
The market value at the time of his purchase as per the sale deed is very low. But, today it costs much higher that that. Will the court award the amount as per the present market value.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 25 October 2011
In Bhagya Nagar Colony Welfare Association v. Government of A.P., 2003 (4) ALD 74 multi-storeyed residential complexes/group housing were constructed and houses were allotted in a portion of the land admeasuring 2,897 sq. yards which had been earmarked as a park/open space. It was held by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh that the “Municipality shall immediately take action for demolishing and dismantling all structures, which have come up in the open area admeasuring 2897 sq. yards in the layout approved by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, whatever be the amount spent on such structures, forthwith.” The court however made an exception for a temple. It said: “The actual area occupied by Shirdi Sai Baba Temple shall be excluded and other structures, be it, temporary or permanent, shall also be dismantled and removed forthwith. The area of about 2,597 sq, yards after excluding 300 sq. yards occupied by the temple shall be developed as a park.” (
ajay sethi
(Expert) 25 October 2011
you have a good case against the builder . file civil and criminal case . you can ask for compensation . you can also move the consumer forum
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 25 October 2011
Nothing remains to be added in the reasoned detailed reply of Ajay.
Sailesh Kumar Shah
(Expert) 25 October 2011
I also agree with detailed reply of Shri Ajay sethi.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 26 October 2011
I am in complete agreement with detailed reply of Mr. Ajay sethi.
