Skip to main content

No sale of flats without completion certificate

Rajasthan High Court on Friday directed that no registration of flats in multi-storey buildings will be allowed in the state without issuance of completion certificate by the competent authority.

The single bench of the court issued the order on a petition by Chiranjilal Pilania against Dev Developers in Sikar, who constructed a G+5 multi-storey building on the municipal land after getting permission for a G+3 multi-storey building plan on his private land, violating the building plans in connivance with the municipal officials.

The court said the illegal constructions have become a scourge in urban and semi-urban centres across the state. The regulatory authorities are fighting what seems to be a losing battle against such constructions. The reason lies inter alia in corruption, inefficiency, sheer volume of work and neighbourhood apathy. Consequently, a belief has taken root in the minds of the builders and general public that laws regulating buildings plans can be violated with impunity notwithstanding the serious view taken by the Apex court with regard to illegal constructions.

The court directed the state government "to consider requisite steps to break the nexus between the developers and the regulatory bodies in allowing illegal constructions inter alia by directing that registering authorities across the state of Rajasthan to not register sale of flats in multi-storey buildings without the issuance of a completion certificate to the builder concerned."

The counsel for the petitioner Anoop Dhand said the court directed time-bound disposal of the present case to avoid delay. The court directed the municipal council of Sikar to decide on the application for regularization of the building within 10 days of the receipt of the court order.

The court said as far as the occupants are concerned, "it is also the obligation of the purchasers of flats in any multi-storey building to ensure that the construction is as per the approved plan. Every illegal construction cannot be prevented. But visible action on contravention is the necessary message which alone can safeguard the rule of law," the order said."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of ...

SARFAESI-Right of tenant/lessee - Supreme Court

Cited: 1)  M/s Trade Well, a Proprietorship Firm, Mumbai & Anr. v. Indian Bank & Anr. [2007 CRI. L.J. 2544]   2)  C.B. Gautam v. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 1 SCC 78] 3)  ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers Ltd. & Ors. [(2006) 10 SCC 452] 4) D elhi High Court in Shri Sanjeev Bansal v. Oman International Bank SAOG & Anr. 131 (2006) DLT 729  5) Madras High Court in Sree Lakshmi Products v. State Bank of India (AIR 2007 Madras 148) 6)  Sunita Jugalkishore Gilda v. Ramalal Udhoji Tanna (dead) through LRs. & Ors. [(2013) 10 SCC 258], Supreme Court 7)  Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and Others [(2009) 4 SCC 94], Supreme Court  8) Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Another v. Ashok Saw Mill [(2009) 8 SCC 366] , Supreme Court 9) United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Others [(2010) 8 SCC 110] , Supreme Court   10)  Oriental Bank of Commerce in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) ...

An order of attachment before judgment ends if a suit is dismissed

An order of attachment before judgment passed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code will not survive the dismissal of a suit and it ends when the suit is dismissed after trial. Contents 1 (i) Whether an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”, for short) made in a suit for recovery of money will survive the dismissal of the suit on merits? 2 (ii) If the appellate court reverses the decree of the trial court and allows the suit claim, will it result in an automatic revival of the order of attachment before judgment? 3 (iii) Whether the ratio in the decision by Full Bench in Thampi Muhammad Abdul Kadir v. Padmanabha Pillai Parameswaran Pillai (1952 KLT 264) holds good in view of the change in the precedential law and insertion of Order XXXVIII Rule 11A to the Code? 3.1 “11A. Provisions applicable to attachment.- 3.2 “57. Determination of attachment.- 3.3 Arumuhom Ammal v. Nayanar Panicker (1962 KLT 264) 3.4...