^"^•3K3^,,, ff ^^1 ^ ^..^v' "'^ "^ '? teS^" s 9 ^ iL! Petiti WRtT APPgAL N0,^79 ofl009 Onkar Nath Tlwari Son of Shri Shiv Prasad Tiwari, aged about 41 years, R/o LIG 1429, Madhya Pradesh Housing Board Coiony, industriai Esfaie, Bhllai, Tahsil & District Durg (CG) Corporation, Bhilai Through Commissioner, Municipa! Corporation, Bhiiai, "ahsli & Districi Durg (CG) Shri SB Sharma, Bhawan Adhikari Nagar Paiika Nigam, (Municipal Corporstion, BhEiai), Tahsi! & Djsirici Dura (CG) Shri Sanat Kumar Bhanchor, Revenue Ofricer, Municipsi Corporation, Bhilai, Tahsi! and District uurg ^L/i^) Shri TK Tiwari, counsel for the appeiiant. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, counse! fc Corporation. th ca t"A??.mi'^^fi^" 3 3^1^ Rlf1!/? 3^^? i i";ir-i?°i^; ^dl ieiwEjur'SSS i-th (25In.A.ugust,2010) Per Dhifendra Mishra, J The petitioner filed writ petition seeking direction against the respondent authorjties to reconstruct his ciemolished house within a periocs of two months or in the aiternate, a direction to the respondents to compensate an amount of Rs.20 lacs to the Detjtioner. The writ petjtion has been dismissed with the fol!owina observations: "On oerusat of the pieadinus, jt is demonstrabiy ciear that the petitioner has not stated correct facts in the petition and, as such, he has not come with clean hands. which amounts to committina fraud, thsrefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any reiief. Even otherwise, the principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straight jacket. it depends on the facts of the case where non-issuance of proper notice causes prejudice 2. sss^ j ^ ••/' ^"y ^ to the oerson concerned. AdmittedSv' the petitioner has constructed first fioor, second floor and furthsr construction on She ground fioor beyond permission and, as such, the petJtioner has no explanation to offer. in such a situation, no writ can be issued to comply with the principies of naturai justice and grant consequentia! relief as prayed for Jn thiswrit petition." Learned counsel for the appellant, reiYina upon the fiscisjon in the mattsr of Syed Muzaffar Ali and ottieFs Vs. ssi.in icipai Corporatiori of Delhs reported in 1395 Supp (4) SCC 43S, aruued that the mere departure from the authorized ptan or puttsng up a construction without sanction does not ipso facto and 'A'ithout more necessarily and inevitably justffy' demoiition of the structure. !n appropriate cases, violations could be compounded or reguiarized and the authorjties shouid resort to demotition only jn serious and grave breaches of buildina reguiations. On the other Corporation, reiyint l, learned counsel for the respondent/Municipa! the judgment in the matter of Priyanka Estates Intemational Prft. Ltd. and others Vs. State of Assam and others SC 1030, araueti that where constructions are in aos< the c; order requii demolition o be aiven nctioned or approved plans and are not likely to fal! in indable items, then the necessan/ consequence is to seat of' approvai for sucti illegai activitjes is not the Supreme Court. The writ petition has been disrnissed by the iearned Single Judge with an obsep/ation that the petitioner has not stated correct facts in the petitfon and as such, has not come up with ciean hands, which amounts to comrnittina fraud. It has been further observed that the petrtioner has admitted construction of first floor, second fioor and further constructjon on ground floor beyond permission and he has offered no exptanatlon for the Having heard iearned counse! for the parties, having perused the impugned order, we find no substance in this appeai, the same deserves to be and is, accordingly, dismissed. _—-— Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge SA'- R.N. Chandrakar Judge