Explore the intricacies of a recent High Court case focusing on the complex legal issues surrounding the right to light and ventilation in buildings. Gain valuable insights into the court’s examination of development control regulations and the absence of statutory provisions safeguarding property rights. Stay tuned for a deeper understanding of how the court’s decision shapes the legal landscape.
Facts
- The High Court examined the issue of ‘Right to Light and Ventilation’ in buildings.
- The Court observed that there are no provisions in development control regulations to come to the rescue of the petitioner.
- The Court noted that there was no statutory provision for maintaining a certain distance between buildings to ensure light and ventilation.
- It was held that the petitioner could not claim an absolute right to unobstructed light and ventilation in a congested area.
- The Court dismissed the writ petition citing lack of statutory backing for the petitioner’s claim.
- The appeal challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector, Buldhana was rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati.
- The High Court’s order was perceived as cryptic and not addressing important raised questions.
- The appellant filed Writ petition No.5115 of 2018 in furtherance to the matter.
- Permission for converting agricultural land to non-agricultural was refused to respondent no.4 due to lack of approach road to the proposed layout.
- No easement of necessity or existing rights favored respondent no.4 for granting access.
- The writ petition challenged the order dated 27.06.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati.
- Spot inspection led to a direction to create a road with 6 meters width to enable respondent no.4’s access to his agricultural field.
- The writ petition was dismissed, leading to the appellant filing the current appeal.
Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election
Arguments
- During the proceedings, respondent no.4 had access to his property through the road on the appellant’s property.
- The access provided to respondent no.4 was enjoyed while the case was ongoing.
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Analysis
- Concurrently found that the layout was prepared by the petitioner in violation of conditions of the sanctioned order.
- The authorities below considered the facts of the case.
- The High Court has reviewed the impugned order.
- The authorities have created a six-meter-wide road
- No serious mistakes have been found in the authorities’ concurrent findings
- The concurrent findings have been duly recorded
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Decision
- Respondent no.4 is not allowed to change the character of his property pending the High Court’s decision.
- The status quo as of 11.01.2019 will be maintained.
- The petition is dismissed, and no costs are ordered.
- The High Court’s order is set aside, and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration.
- The writ petition filed by the appellant is restored to the High Court for disposal within six months.
- The appeal is allowed without any costs.
Case Title: SULOCHANABAI SWAROPCHAND CHAWRE Vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (2021 INSC 507)
Case Number: C.A. No.-005800-005800 / 2021
