2024:JHHC:44069 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2671 of 2022 Sanjay Vidrohi @ Sanjay Kumar Vidrohi, aged about 59 years, son of Late Shree Bhagwan Gadodia, resident of Geeta Bhawan, Beside S.S. Memorial College, Kanke Road, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Gonda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN 834008. ..… Petitioner Versus 1. Ranchi Municipal Corporation, through its Municipal Commissioner, having its office at Kutchery Chowk, P.O. – G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN 834001. 2. Ranchi Regional Development Authority, through its Vice Chairman, having its office at Kutchery Road, P.O. - G.P.O. and P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN 834001. 3. M/s. Aroma Construction Pvt. Ltd., through its Director, having its office at Aroma Palace, Albert Ekka Chowk, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN -834001. 4. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN 834004. 5. Har Narayan Lakhotia, son of Late Shiv Narayan Lakhotia, resident of Flat No. 3B, 3rd Floor, Chandralok Apartment, Court Road, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN 834001. ..… Respondents WITH W.P.(C) No. 2830 of 2022 Har Narayan Lakhotia, aged about 83 years, son of Late Shiv Narayan Lakhotia, resident of Flat No. 3B, Third Floor, Chandralok Apartment, Court Road, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN 834001...… Petitioner versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Urban Development and Housing Department, through its Secretary, having its office at Urban Development and Housing Department, Project Building Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi-834004, Jharkhand. 3. The Ranchi Municipal Corporation, through its Municipal Commissioner, having its office at Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Kutchery Chowk, P.O. G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, 834001, Jharkhand. 4. The Regional Development Authority, through its Vice chairman, having its office at Ranchi Regional Development authority, Kutchery Chowk, P.O. and P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi-834001, Jharkhand. 5. M/s. Aroma Construction Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at Aroma Palace, Albert Ekka Chowk, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi-834001, Jharkhand, through its Director(s). (i) Vijay Kumar Singh, son of Mr. Ram Pravesh Singh, Ratu Road, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, Ranchi-834001, Jharkhand. (ii) Bibhuti Bhushan Prasad Amar, son of Late Bishwanath Prasad Amar, resident of Ratu Road, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, P.O Hehal District Ranchi- 834001, Jharkhand. 2024:JHHC:44069 2 6. Sanjay Vidrohi @ Sanjay Kumar Vidrohi, owner of Godown/Shop in the parking area of ground floor of Chandralok Apartment, Court Road, P.O. – G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 834001, Jharkhand. ..… Respondents …… CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For Petitioner Mr. Sumeet Kumar Gadodia, Advocate Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate, (In W.P.(C) No. 2671 of 2022) For Resp. No.1 Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate (virtual mode) For Resp. No.2 Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate For Resp. No 3 Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate For Resp. No.4 A.C. to A.G. For Resp. No.5 Mr. Shambhu Nath Singh, Advocate For Petitioner Mr. Shambhu Nath Singh, Advocate (In W.P.(C) No. 2830 of 2022) For Resp.No.1 & 2 A.C. To A.G. For Resp. No.3 Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate (virtual mode) For Resp. No.4 Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate For Resp. No.5 Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate For Resp. No.6 Mr. Sumeet Kumar Gadodia, Advocate. ….. CAV on: 17.03.2026 Pronounced on:29 /04/2026 J U D G M E N T 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Since in both the writ petitions, order dated 27th May, 2022 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 06 of 2018 by Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Regional Development Authority (for short ‘RRDA’) is under challenge, same were heard together and being disposed of by this common Judgment. 3. It may be noted that, earlier, both the writ petitions were decided by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2024, and, W.P.(C) No. 2671 of 2022 challenging the order of Appellate Tribunal dated 27th May, 2022 was allowed and said order was set aside. However, W.P.(C) No. 2830 of 2022 filed by Har Narayan Lakhotia was disposed of in view of the fact that this Court interfered with the Appellate Tribunal Order and restored the order of Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation dated 04.01.2018 in U.C. Case No. 110 of 2016. 2024:JHHC:44069 3 4. A Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 146 of 2025 was filed by Har Narayan Lakhotia (Writ Petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 2830 of 2022) and the Division Bench remanded the matter back for fresh hearing before learned Single Bench. Operative portion of the order dated 02.02.2026 passed in L.P.A. No. 146 of 2025 is as under:- “13. However, we have declined the invitation extended by the rival parties to review the merits of the matter. Ultimately, in such matters, the decision- making process is as important as, if not more important than, the decision itself. Since we find merit in the appellant’s contention about failure of natural justice, on that sole ground and without entering into the merits of the matter, we set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2024 and remand the matter to the learned single Judge for fresh consideration of W.P.(C) No. 2671 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No. 2830 of 2022 in accordance with law and on their own merits after giving all the parties full opportunity of being heard. 14. However, we think that it would not be equitable to allow the Tribunal’s order dated 27th May, 2022 to operate pending the disposal of the two petitions. Tribunal has ordered remand to the Municipal Commissioner, and if the Municipal Commissioner revisits the matter pursuant to the remand, then such revisit would prejudice the interest of both the parties. Therefore, pending the disposal of the writ petitions W.P.(C) No. 2671 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No. 2830 of 2022, the Tribunal’s order of remand shall remain stayed. 15. The parties to appear before the learned Single Judge on 16th of February, 2026, so that the learned Single Bench can indicate any fresh date, as per its convenience, for disposal of the two writ petitions. Once again, we clarify that we have not examined the rival contentions on the merits and, therefore, all contentions of the parties on the merits of the matter remain explicitly open. As noted earlier, the Tribunal’s order dated 27th May, 2022, remanding the matter to the Municipal Commissioner, shall remain stayed until the final disposal of W.P.(C) No. 2671 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No. 2830 of 2022. 16. The Appeal is disposed of, in the above terms without any order for cost(s).” 5. In view of aforesaid order, the matter was listed before this Court on 16.02.2026 and with the joint request of the counsels appearing in both the writ petitions, the matter was fixed for 16th March, 2026. On 16th March, 2026, the matter could not be taken up for hearing and in presence of the parties, the same was fixed for hearing on 17th March, 2026. 6. On 17th March, 2026, detailed arguments were advanced by respective counsels in both the writ petitions and Judgment in the matter was reserved. Liberty was granted for filing Written Submissions, if any, and consequent thereto Written Submission on behalf of Mr. Shambhu Nath Singh, Advocate has been filed in both the writ petitions. 2024:JHHC:44069 4 7. The dispute in the present writ application pertains to a multi-storied building known as ‘Chandralok Apartment’ which was constructed by a Builder ‘Aroma Construction Pvt. Ltd.’, impleaded as Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.5 in respective writ petitions. 8. The Builder Aroma Construction Pvt. Ltd. initially got its Building Plan sanctioned by Respondent-R.R.D.A. vide B.C. Case No. 359 of 1996 and certain additional area was constructed by the said Builder. Accordingly, an application for revised sanction of map for post-facto approval of additional construction was made by the Builder before R.R.D.A. and such application was registered as B.C. Case No. 102 of 2007. Said additional construction was regularized after payment of regularization fee of Rs. 1,52,140/-. 9. However, Petitioner-Har Narayan Lakhotia, who was resident of the said building objected to the sanction of additional construction granted by R.R.D.A. on the ground that said sanction was granted contrary to the Building Bye-laws in collusion with R.R.D.A. officials and Builder. 10. In view of aforesaid fact, Har Narayan Lakhotia filed a Public Interest Litigation being W.P.(PIL) No. 1531 of 2011 before this Court primarily contending, inter alia, that revised Building Plan was sanctioned in connivance with the officials of R.R.D.A. and Builder, with a further prayer for issuance of direction for removal of illegal and unauthorized structure constructed on ground floor of Chandralok Apartment. 11. Said PIL was entertained by this Court after noticing that several multi-storied buildings in the District of Ranchi have been sanctioned un-authorizedly and, vide order dated 22.03.2011, investigation was ordered to be carried out by C.B.I. and, thereafter, R.C. Case No. 03/A/2011 dated 30.03.2011 was registered. 12. Admittedly, charge-sheet has been filed in the said case vide Charge- sheet No. 17 of 2011 dated 24.10.2011 before learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi. Said charge-sheet has been annexed as Annexure-4 in 2024:JHHC:44069 5 W.P.(C) No. 2830 of 2022, from which, it would be evident that charge-sheet was submitted against certain officials of R.R.D.A. and Directors of the Builder M/s. Aroma Construction Pvt. Ltd. The case is still pending for trial before learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi. 13. During pendency of the said PIL, jurisdiction of R.R.D.A. of sanctioning Building Plans was transferred to Ranchi Municipal Corporation (for short ‘RMC’) and, accordingly, a team of Engineers of RMC carried out an inspection of ‘Chandralok Apartment’ and in the investigation, it was found that as against permissible F.A.R. of 2.5, construction has been made of F.A.R. 2.89 and, thus, 0.39 excess F.A.R. has been constructed. 14. Based upon the said Report, RMC initiated U.C. Case No. 110 of 2016 and issued first notice vide Letter No. 1009 dated 20.09.2016 to all residents of Chandralok Apartment. 15. Har Narayan Lakhotia submitted his reply/complaint before RMC on 20.10.2016 and giving reference to pending PIL filed by him and the Report of RMC, prayed inter alia that illegal construction may be demolished. 16. It is an admitted fact that said report was obtained by Mr. Har Narayan Lakhotia under Right to Information Act, vide Letter No. 1711 dated 08.05.2015 and a Supplementary Affidavit was filed in pending PIL being W.P.(PIL) No. 1531 of 2011 annexing the said report and prayer was made before the Division Bench of this Court to pass order for demolition of alleged excess construction. 17. However, the Court, vide its Judgment and order dated 21.11.2016, while noticing the fact that deviation in F.A.R. and additional construction of 0.39% was duly regularized by R.R.D.A. upon accepting regularization fee, was pleased to disposed of the PIL and prayer of Writ Petitioner-Har Narayan Lakhotia regarding removal of alleged excess construction was not entertained. 18. A Special Leave Petition being Special Leave to Appeal (Cr.) No. 3800 of 2017 was filed by Har Narayan Lakhotia which was 2024:JHHC:44069 6 dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 09.05.2017. Thereafter, even C.M.P. application being C.M.P No. 240 of 2018 was filed by Mr. Har Narayan Lakhotia and, in the said C.M.P., it was specifically noted that additional construction was permissible construction and only the figures mentioned in the earlier order were substituted. The report of the Engineers was specifically considered in pending PIL and, since the Court refused to entertain the prayer regarding demolition of alleged excess construction, the Municipal Commissioner vide its order dated 04.01.2018, passed in U.C. Case No. 110 of 2016, was pleased to dispose of the U.C. Case by recording, inter alia, that aspect pertaining to connivance and cheating in sanction of revised plan is subject matter of trial before the competent court and it is only after the Judgment passed by competent court on aforesaid aspect, any further action can be initiated. 19. Against the aforesaid Judgment, Har Narayan Lakhotia preferred Appeal under Section 54(2) of Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act, 1981 before learned Appellate Tribunal, R.R.D.A., Ranchi which was registered as Appeal Case No. 06 of 2018. Said Appeal was partly allowed by Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 27th May, 2022 and the matter was remanded back to Municipal Commissioner for fresh decision as per law. 20. It is the aforesaid order which is under challenge in both the writ petitions by Co-resident. 21. Mr. Sumeet Kumar Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for Co- resident-Sanjay Kumar Vidrohi, while assailing the impugned order dated 27th May, 2022, contended that an issue which has already been settled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been reopened by Appellate Tribunal, which is impermissible in law. By placing reliance upon Paras 20 and 21 of the impugned Judgment, it was submitted that Municipal Tribunal committed grave jurisdictional error by allowing the Co-resident to re-agitate the issue of alleged illegal construction despite order in PIL, by placing reliance upon the 2024:JHHC:44069 7 order dated 11.10.2017 passed in W.P.(Cr.) No. 314 of 2011 and analogous cases. 22. The order passed in the said W.P.(Cr.) dated 11.10.2017 was referred and it was submitted that officials of R.R.D.A. and the Builder approached this Court for quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them by C.B.I. It is in the said pending proceeding, Co- resident Har Narayan Lakhotia filed an Interlocutory application for Intervener, which was withdrawn by him with liberty to raise his grievance before appropriate forum and such permission was accorded. 23. It was vehemently submitted that aforesaid order dated 11.10.2017 only permitted Har Narayan Lakhotia to withdraw the Intervener application and cannot be treated to be an order granting fresh lease of life to a dispute which was already closed by virtue of the order passed by Hon’ble Division Bench in Public Interest Litigation. 24. Learned counsels for R.R.D.A. and R.M.C. also supported the contention of Co-resident-Sanjay Kumar Vidrohi and submitted that revised Building Plan was already sanctioned after accepting regularization fee and this Court, after noticing the said fact, was pleased to dismiss the Public Interest Litigation. 25. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for Builder, vehemently submitted that Co-resident Har Narayan Lakhotia, even after dismissal of PIL and S.L.P., is indulging and repeatedly agitating the same issue and his conduct is an abuse of process of law by him and the writ petition of Har Narayan Lakhotia should be dismissed with exemplary cost and Writ Petition of Co-resident, namely, Sanjay Kumar Vidrohi may be allowed and the order of Municipal Tribunal may be set aside. 26. It was submitted on behalf of the Builder that, in fact, there is material concealment of fact by Writ Petitioner-Har Narayan Lakhotia, as he and his family members are direct beneficiaries of revised map, where certain portion was constructed on ground floor and even an 2024:JHHC:44069 8 additional flat was constructed and said additional flat has been purchased by daughter-in-law of Har Narayan Lakhotia namely, Kavita Lakhotia. 27. It was submitted that Writ Petitioner-Har Narayan Lakhotia is approbating and re-approbating at the same time and he is alleging that revised map was sanctioned in connivance with the Builder and officials of R.R.D.A.; whereas he is a direct beneficiary of revised map i.e. additional flat constructed pursuant thereto, belongs to his family member. 28. Per contra, Mr. Shambhu Nath Singh, learned counsel appearing for Writ Petitioner-Har Narayan Lakhotia in W.P.(C) 2830 of 2022 and also appearing for Respondent No.5 in W.P.(C) No. 2671 of 2022, has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by respective parties. 29. A detailed Written Notes of Submissions has also been submitted in support of the arguments and it has been submitted that in G+3 residential building, southern side Parking area was encroached upon by the Builder by constructing additional unit which was sold by Builder to Sanjay Kumar Vidrohi, whereas, said space was identified as open space for parking of vehicles of residents. 30. It was vehemently submitted that Respondent-Builder already made construction and got post facto map sanctioned by wrongly representing in the application that additional construction was proposed whereas additional construction was already made by the Builder. 31. It has been further vehemently submitted that U.C. Case No. 110 of 2016 was initiated Suo-Motu by R.M.C. on the basis of Inspection Report of its Engineers, but, subsequently, Municipal Commissioner, R.M.C., without considering the Investigation Report and materials on record, disposed of U.C. Case vide order dated 04.01.2018 and has, thus, failed to exercise statutory power under the Act. 32. Reliance was placed upon Judgment of ‘Priyanka Estates International Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam, (2010) 2 SCC 27’, to 2024:JHHC:44069 9 contend, inter alia, that there cannot be any equity in the matter of illegal construction and the same is liable to be demolished. 33. While assailing the order passed by Municipal Tribunal, it was submitted that Municipal Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 54 of Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act and only remanded the matter back to Municipal Commissioner instead of itself declaring and ordering demolition of the unit constructed in ground floor. 34. It has been further submitted that such failure to exercise statutory power caused grave prejudice to Writ Petitioner-Har Narayan Lakhotia. 35. On the issue of pendency of criminal case, it was submitted that Municipal Commissioner, RMC was duty bound to consider the report of the Engineers and was required to proceed in the matter, but, Municipal Commissioner surrendered its jurisdiction to the Trial court by passing the impugned order dated 04.01.2018. 36. Having considered rival contentions of the parties, the questions for determination before this Court are as under:- (i) Whether in view of order dated 21.11.2016 passed in W.P.(PIL) No. 1531 of 2011 and order dated 9th October, 2018 passed in C.M.P. No. 240 of 2018, a quietus has been put to the dispute regarding alleged excess construction in respect of ‘Chandralok Apartment’? (ii) Whether order dated 27th May, 2022 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 06 of 2018 by Appellate Tribunal, R.R.D.A., Ranchi partly allowing the Appeal and remanding the matter back for fresh adjudication to Municipal Commissioner in U.C. Case No. 110 of 2016 is sustainable or not? 37. Detailed facts pertaining to the dispute have already been noted and same are not repeated herein. It is an undisputed fact that Co-resident Har Narayan Lakhotia, in Public Interest Litigation filed by him, being W.P. (PIL) No. 1531 of 2011, specifically prayed for removal of alleged illegal and unauthorized structure used as Godown and Shop constructed over Parking-area of ‘Chandralok Apartment’. 2024:JHHC:44069 10 During pendency of said PIL, a team of Engineers of R.M.C. carried out an inspection of Chandralok Apartment and submitted Inspection Report dated 09.08.2014/11.08.2014, wherein it was clearly recorded that as against admissible F.A.R. of 2.5, construction has been made of F.A.R. 2.89 and, thus, additional construction of 0.39 percentage has been made. Said Report was obtained by Co-resident Har Narayan Lakhotia under Right to Information Act vide Letter No. 1711 dated 08.05.2015 and the same was also admittedly filed in pending PIL by way of Supplementary Affidavit. 38. On perusal of order passed by the Division Bench in PIL, it would be evident that the Division Bench specifically considered the said Report and, after noticing that additional construction was at 0.39 percentage, which has been regularized by R.R.D.A. upon payment of regularization fee, was pleased to dispose of the said PIL vide order dated 21.11.2016. The said order, for the sake of brevity is quoted herein-under:- “Having heard counsel for both the sides at length and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that this is not a Public Interest Litigation at all. 2. Prayer made in this writ petition reads as under:- “For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction to the respondents to immediately remove the illegal and unauthorized structure being used as Godown and shop, constructed in the parking area of Chandralok apartment constructed after due approval of the plan by R.R.D.A. in B.C. Case No. 359/96 dated 29.06.1996 sanctioning G+3 storied building along with car parking in the basement of the building in the name and style of Chandralok apartment, as the illegal construction of Godown/shop has created nuisance to the resident of the apartment besides severe problem of parking of the vehicle in the prescribed place besides several problems in case of any vismajor and fire.” 3. It appears that respondent No. 6 is the purchaser of the property. It further appears that plot, in question, is ad-measuring approximately an area of 383.48 sq. mt. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) i.e. maximum permissible construction in the area in question is 2.5. Thus, permissible maximum construction upon the plot in question is 383.40 sq. mt. x 2.5, which comes to 958.7 sq. mt. 4. It is vehemently submitted by the counsel for the Ranchi Municipal Corporation that additional construction was at 0.39 percentage. Meaning thereby, additional construction is approximately 3.73 sq. mt. 5. Thus the whole matter is revolving around only 3.73 sq. mt. additional construction at the highest. 6. It is vehemently alleged by the counsel for respondent No.6, who is the purchaser of the aforesaid additional construction, that earlier also same orchestra was played by this petitioner and ultimately, Ranchi Regional 2024:JHHC:44069 11 Development Authority (RRDA) had regularized the said construction upon payment of Rs. 1,52,140/-. 7. Thus looking to the nature of this petition, it appears that original petitioner has several allegations to be leveled against the purchaser of the property, who is respondent No.6. This respondent No.6 has already paid the consideration amount to the builder. Original builder has also paid penalty of Rs. 1,52,140/- to the RRDA. Now the property is within the territorial limits of Ranchi Municipal Corporation (RMC). 8. Looking to the allegations and the nature of illegal construction and also looking to the earlier regularization orders and the payment of money already made to the original builder, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition as Public Interest Litigation. Even otherwise, this writ petition is of the year 2011. There is enough monitoring by this Court about the illegality of construction in the city of Ranchi. C.B.I is given direction to the investigate the matter about the illegality of construction in the city of Ranchi. C.B.I. is given direction to investigate the matter about the illegality of construction. In several matters, charge sheet has been filed and few have been quashed and set Aside by this Court in exercising of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Still inter se dispute between the so-called dissatisfied souls and so-called builders and purchasers are still going on in this city. 9. Be as it may, the fact remains that in this case we do not want to further monitor the illegal construction in the city of Ranchi. Enough steps have been taken by the RMC and the RRDA. Now they are scrutinizing the plans with vigilant eyes and those few officers, who are in collusion with the builders, are also given notice. 10. In view of these facts, there is no need of further monitoring of the illegal construction in the city of Ranchi. Hence, this Public Interest Litigation is hereby disposed of. 11. All the interlocutory applications, preferred in this writ petition, are brought to an end because main writ petition is disposed of. If any person, who is applicant of the interlocutory application, wants to file Public Interest Litigation, he is at liberty to file it at his own risk with necessary details about the genuinity of the Public Interest Litigation, appropriate averments, allegations and annexures.” 39. Admittedly, S.L.P. being Special Leave to Appeal (Cr.) No. 3800 of 2017 against aforesaid order in PIL was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09.05.2017. 40. Thereafter, C.M.P. application was filed by Har Narayan Lakhotia, alleging inter alia that in Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order passed in PIL, an error apparent in the record of the case has occurred as area mentioned in paras 4 and 5 of the Order in PIL wrongly records the area of excess construction made. The Division Bench of this Court, after considering the said averment, has disposed of C.M.P. vide Order dated 9th October, 2018 and again noticed the additional construction which was made and categorically held that said additional construction was within permissible construction and typographical error occurring in paras 4 and 5 of earlier PIL was 2024:JHHC:44069 12 ordered to be replaced. The order in C.M.P., for brevity, is quoted herein-under:- “1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petitioner has been preferred for rectification of an error apparent on the face of the record, which is mentioned in paragraph Nos. 4 & 5 of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(PIL) No. 1531 of 2011, order dated 21.11.2016. 2. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides, and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the plot in question is ad measuring 383.48 sq. mt. and the permissible Floor Area Ratio at the relevant time was 2.5. Thus, permissible construction on the plot in question is 958.70 sq. mt., whereas the actual construction carried out upon the said plot is 1108.26 sq. mt. Thus, the additional construction comes to 149.56 sq. mt. (1108.26 sq. mt. – 958.70 sq. mt.). Thus, the additional construction comes to 15.6% of 958.70 sq. mt. – permissible construction. 3. Thus, this caveat of the figure at paragraph Nos. 4 & 5 of the order passed by this Court dated 21.11.2016 in W.P. (P.I.L.) Nol. 1531 of 2011 are replaced as under :- “4. It is vehemently submitted by the counsel for the Ranchi Municipal Corporation that additional construction was at 15.6 percentage. Meaning thereby, additional construction is approximately 149.56 sq. mt. 5. Thus the whole matter is revolving around only 149.56 sq. mt. Additional construction at the highest.” 4. The aforesaid two paragraphs are replaced in the order passed by this Court dated 21.11.2016 in W.P. (PIL) No. 1531 of 2011. The rest of the order passed by this Court remains as it is. 5. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), to be deposited by this petitioner before the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Nyaya Sadan Doranda, Ranchi, within a period of six weeks from today. 6. This amount shall be utilized towards the programme “Access to Justice’. 7. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed with cost. 8. Copy of this order will be sent by the Registrar General of this Court to:- (a) the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Nyaya Sadan, Doranda, Ranchi.’ 41. Thus, from the facts stated hereinabove, it would be evident that in PIL, the Engineers’ Report was specifically considered, and, after noticing the extent of additional construction which was already regularized, the Court declined the prayer of Co-resident Har Narayan Lakhotia regarding demolition of said additional construction. Even at the stage of CMP, the Division Bench specifically recorded, inter alia, that additional construction of 958.70 sq. metre was permissible 2024:JHHC:44069 13 construction and only substituted the error of figure which occurred in earlier PIL. 42. A bare perusal of the records of W.P.(C) No. 2830 of 2022 would reveal that Municipal Commissioner, during pendency of the PIL, initiated U.C. Case No. 110/2016 only on the basis of Engineers’ Report dated 09.08.2014/11.08.2014, but from final order passed by Municipal Commissioner, it would clearly transpire that Municipal Commissioner specifically noticed the order passed in PIL and dismissal of S.L.P. and, thereafter, recorded that in view of aforesaid order, U.C. Case cannot be continued at that stage. Municipal Commissioner, in its order, further categorically recorded that the issue regarding connivance between officials of R.R.D.A. and Builder in sanction of revised map is subject matter of trial before Special Judge, C.B.I. and unless any order is passed by Trial Court in aforesaid aspect in view of decision of the Division Bench of this Court in PIL and dismissal of S.L.P., U.C. case cannot be proceeded upon. 43. In my opinion, order passed by Municipal Commissioner was strictly in accordance with judicial discipline as the Division Bench, specifically considering the Engineers’ Report on the basis of which U.C. case was initiated, was pleased to dispose of P.I.L not entertaining the prayer of Co-resident Har Narayan Lakhotia for demolition of additional construction. If Municipal Commissioner would have passed any order contrary to the order passed by Division Bench of this Court, the same would not only be contrary to the binding judicial precedence but would have also amounted to contumacious disregard to the order passed by this Court. 44. However, from perusal of the order passed by Appellate Tribunal, it appears that Appellate Tribunal, without recording any reasoning, remanded the matter back to Municipal Commissioner for fresh 2024:JHHC:44069 14 adjudication of U.C. case. Relevant extract of the order of Appellate Tribunal dated 22.05.2022 is as under:- “18. From perusal of the L.C.R., it transpires that the respondent has made a complaint before the respondent no.1 for encroachment in parking area of Chandralok Apartment then the report is called for by respondent no.1 and the said report is submitted by 8 J.E. and 3 assistant engineers on 09.08.2014 which is annexed vide annexure 4 along with memo of appeal and the proceeding in U.C. Case No. 110/2016 has been initiated. 19. From perusal of impugned order dated 04.01.2018 passed in U.C. Case No. 110/2016, it transpires that the said proceeding is stopped and further any step can be taken after the order of criminal court. 20. The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi vide order dated 11.11.2017 passed in W.P.(Cr.) no. 314 of 2011 with W.P. (Cr.) no. 211/2012 with Cr.M.P. no. 2238/2013 with Cr.M.P. no. 3219 of 2013, gave liberty to the appellant to raise his grievance before appropriate forum. 21. Since the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi, vide order dated 11.11.2017 passed in W.P.(Cr.) no. 314 of 2011 with W.P.(Cr.) no. 211/2012 with Cr.M.P. No. 3219 of 2013 ordered and gave liberty to the appellant to raise his grievance before appropriate forum and the impugned order has been passed without discussing the show cause as well as report called for by respondent no.1. Thus, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to pass fresh order as per law. The appellant is directed to appear before the court below on 27.06.2022. Office is directed to send the copy of this order along with L.C.R. to the court below for information and needful.” 45. A bare perusal of the said order would reflect that Appellate Tribunal, ignoring the order passed by Division Bench of this Court, remanded the matter back to Municipal Commissioner for fresh adjudication by placing reliance upon order dated 11.11.2017 passed in W.P.(Cr.) No. 314 of 2011 and analogous cases. 46. Appellate Tribunal, in effect, in its order, held that the order dated 11.11.2017 by which liberty was granted to Co-resident to raise his grievance before appropriate forum, would revive all proceedings undertaken by Co-resident Har Narayan Lakhotia, which, in the opinion of this Court, is completely misconceived. Order dated 11.10.2017 passed in W.P.(Cr.) 314 of 2011 is quoted here-under:- “Mr. P.P. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the proposed intervenor seeks permission to withdraw I.A. No. 7365 of 2017 in W.P.(Cr.) No. 314 of 2011, I.A. No. 7367 of 2017 in W.P.(Cr.) No. 2011 of 2012 & I.A. No. 7368 of 2017 in Cr.M.P. No. 3219 of 2013 with a liberty to raise his grievance before the appropriate forum. Permission is accorded. I.A. Nos. 7365 of 2017, 7367 of 2017 and 7368 of 2017 in respective case are permitted to be withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. Let these matters be listed on 07.11.2017.” 2024:JHHC:44069 15 47. A bare perusal of the said order would reveal that the Court only permitted Co-resident Har Narayan Lakhotia to withdraw its Interlocutory application in W.P.(Cr.) No. 314 of 2011 in order to enable him to raise his grievance before appropriate forum. Such permission by this Court cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated to have an effect of nullifying the order passed by Division Bench in P.I.L and C.M.P. 48. Appellate Tribunal committed grave illegality in interpreting the order dated 11.11.2017 passed in W.P. (Cr.) No. 314 of 2011 and remanding the matter back to Municipal Commissioner when the entire issue already stood resolved. 49. This Court carefully considered the arguments advanced by Mr. Shambhu Nath Singh, learned counsel for Co-resident Har Narayan Lakhotia and there is no dispute regarding proposition on which Judgments have been cited by him. However, in view of detailed discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the firm opinion that the issue regarding alleged additional construction and its regularization has already been settled and a quietus to such dispute has been put by the Division Bench of this Court vide order passed in P.I.L. and C.M.P. and the same cannot be re-agitated at the behest of Co-resident Har Narayan Lakhotia. 50. In fact, entire case of Co-resident Har Narayan Lakhotia is based upon the charge-sheet submitted by C.B.I. and Engineers’ Report dated 09.08.2014/11.08.2014. So far as charge-sheet submitted by C.B.I., the same is subject matter of trial before Special Judge, C.B.I. and said trial is yet to be concluded. There cannot be any presumption of connivance between officials of R.R.D.A. and Builder at this stage. 51. At the cost of repetition, Engineers’ Report, on which extensive reliance has been placed by Har Narayan Lakhotia, has also been considered by the Division Bench of this Court and the same cannot be a basis for ordering demolition when such additional construction has already been regularized. 2024:JHHC:44069 16 52. In view of foregoing paragraphs, Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No. 2671 of 2022 filed by Sanjay Kumar Vidrohi is allowed and order dated 27th May, 2022 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 06 of 2018 by Appellate Tribunal, R.R.D.A. is, hereby, quashed and set aside and the order of Municipal Commissioner dated 04.01.2018 passed in U.C. Case No. 110 of 2016, is restored. 53. So far as Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No. 2830 of 2022 filed by Har Narayan Lakhotia is concerned, the same is, hereby, dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. No cost. (Deepak Roshan, J) Dated:29/04/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 05.05.2026