Court mandates proceedings under Section 7-A of the Regulation of Building Operations Act, 1958, amidst allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation.
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the decision of the Prescribed Authority to discontinue proceedings under Section 7-A of the Regulation of Building Operations Act, 1958, against respondent Smt. Sabira Khatoon, following allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation in obtaining building plan sanctions. The court has directed that proceedings under both Sections 7-A and 10 of the Act must continue.
The case, titled "Smt. Vandana Singh v. State of U.P.," involved a dispute over a building plan sanctioned for construction on land bearing Gata No. 796 in Pratapgarh. The petitioner, Smt. Vandana Singh, alleged that the respondent obtained the sanction by misrepresenting the boundaries of the land in her application and affidavit, constituting a fraud upon the authority.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, highlighted the independent operation of Sections 7-A and 10 of the Regulation of Building Operations Act. While Section 7-A addresses cancellation of permissions obtained through fraud, Section 10 deals with construction violations. Both sections were deemed applicable in this case, indicating that previous proceedings under Section 10 do not preclude actions under Section 7-A.
The court found that the respondent had shown false boundaries in her building plan application, which were inconsistent with those in the registered sale deed. An inquiry report further revealed discrepancies in the sanctioned building plans, highlighting missing provisions for parking and incorrect setbacks, indicating potential collusion between officials and the respondent.
Citing the need to uphold the rule of law and prevent fraudulent acts from undermining planned development, the court emphasized that the Prescribed Authority must act against such frauds. The court rejected the argument that the petitioner's previous focus on Section 10 proceedings barred actions under Section 7-A, pointing out the independent nature of the provisions and the absence of any directive prohibiting Section 7-A actions in prior orders.
In conclusion, the court ordered the Prescribed Authority to reinstate and expeditiously conclude proceedings under both Sections 7-A and 10, ensuring adherence to legal norms and protecting public interest in planned urban development.
Bottom Line:
Fraudulent misrepresentation in obtaining building plan sanction warrants initiation of proceedings under Section 7-A of the Regulation of Building Operations Act, 1958, irrespective of previous proceedings under Section 10 of the Act.
Statutory provision(s): Regulation of Building Operations Act, 1958, Sections 7-A and 10; Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order II Rule 2
Smt. Vandana Singh v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2871279
