House building laws: India
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content.
NOC from others not needed for new floor: HC
Abhinav Garg, An owner can build new floor without NOC from others: HC, August 1, 2017: The Times of India
N Corp Told To Vet Pleas Keeping In Mind Bylaws And Rules
Municipal corporations can't insist on a no objection certificate (NOC) from other floor owners if one of them wants to raise an additional floor.
In an authoritative ruling that went largely unnoticed, the Delhi high court has re-iterated that such a demand for NOC is unwarranted in cases where the property has been partitioned and the owners of a floor wish to raise additional constructions on top.
A bench of acting chief justice Gita Mittal and Justice Anu Malhotra quashed an order of the North Delhi Municipal Corporation where the agency had rejected a plea for sanction of additional construction plans by first floor owners of a house to raise another floor on the terrace owned by them, solely on the ground that it was not accompanied by a NOC from the ground floor owner. “In the present case, the appellants -co-owners of the property wherein the construction is to be raised -have applied for sanction of the additional construction. In these circumstances, the necessity of the respondent No.1 for a NOC from the respondent No.2 (ground floor owner) is completely unwarranted,“ the bench observed.
Granting relief to the petitioners, the bench clarified that the municipal authorities are required to focus on “permissibility of proposed construction from every aspect as postulated in the municipal laws and by-laws as well as other statutes which may have a bearing.It is required to be ensured that all constructions strictly abide by the law.“
While asking the north corporation to again consider the plea of the owners, the court approvingly cited a 2015 single judge order that the “principal purpose for framing building by-laws is to ensure that the buildings are constructed in conformity with the norms and parameters stipulated for planned development.“
The single judge had held that in cases “where an indefensible right of ownership of a property is established and recognised“ the civic agency can only vet plea for building sanction on their adherence to by-laws and rules.
The petitioner in this case, Harish Bajaj had moved court after the corporation rejected his application saying as per rules he was required to supply complete ownership papers of all the floors of the building where he owned the first floor, before getting sanction. Bajaj in his appeal informed the court that following his son's marriage, there was need for more space and he wanted to construct a second floor. The petitioner argued that on account of the Master Plan 2021coming into force, the floor area ratio has also increased entitling owners like him to construct second and third floors over the terrace of the first floor of the property .