The division bench upheld the single judge order and observed that documentary evidence had proved that the permission for the application had been rejected
The Gujarat high court has upheld a single judge order in connection with a case of unauthorised construction in a 'heritage property'.
The petition was filed after a single judge bench dismissed the petition that had challenged the AMC's notification against the property for unauthorised construction.
The AMC had later demolished the said property and the petitioner had sought compensation from the civic body. Interestingly, the petitioner had made use of the heritage property list of 2014 to show that his property was not in the list, but the AMC successfully argued that the said property was removed from the after the petitioner, despite lack of permission, constructed a new building.
The case pertains to a three-floor building (including basement) in Lambeshwar Pol in Kalupur. The building had been in existence before 1929 and the petitioner had bought it in 1999. He then sought permission to do repair work which was not granted.
He nevertheless went ahead with the construction 'to avoid disaster' in the old building but he soon got a notice from the AMC for unauthorised construction.
The counsel for the petitioner challenged AMCs argument that property was heritage property and no permission was sought from the heritage conservation committee for repair works. It showed the list of heritage building of 2014 got through RTI and the said building was not in the list.
The council said that when the petitioner applied for permission on August 6, 2012, the part of the land in which the building stood was part of a heritage structure so the heritage committee's opinion was sought. The committee had denied permission on the ground that the building was in good condition.
The counsel further argued that despite a no from the AMC, the petitioner continued construction.
The division bench upheld the single judge order and observed that documentary evidence had proved that the permission for the application had been rejected. It further said that photographic evidence place before it showed that the building was a heritage building in the list published by the concerned authority then. It also observed that the petitioner had demolished the said structure in spite of the denial of permission and with the new building being constructed the property was no more a heritage property and hence removed from the list. This was why the disputed property did not figure in the heritage properly list of 2014.
LEGAL TRACKS
The division bench upheld the single judge order and observed that documentary evidence had proved that the permission for the application had been rejected.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Demolish illegal construction")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}