JMC out of way allows stilt floor at commercial shop sites 3,4 and 5 , Sector-2 Channi Himmat having area less than 100 Sqm when as per Unified Building Bye-laws 2021 no stilt floor or basement is allowed up to 100 Sqm that too allowing clubbing three differently approved site plans and raising ground floor with common walls ,common slab and leaving equal area from front side

The construction at the site is joint one with common walls common pillars and a joint slab with common height when three differently approved site plans were clubbed to manage more space and covered maximum area leaving marginally space including Shop No.3, 3.69 x 7.2 mtr when three differently approved site plans had different area to be left from front side including Shop No.4, 3.72 x 7.2 mtr and in case of Shop No.5 ,the area to be left from front side was 3.69x 7.2 mtr but at the site the ground floor construction at the site is in same symmetry in a single line.
As per Table 5.4 under Unified Building Bye-laws 2021, in case of commercial construction up to 100 sqm ,the ground coverage is allowed only 70%, FAR 210 and construction so allowed is ground plus two floors and neither basement nor stilt floor is allowed up to 100 sqm. It is surprising to note that area in case of three differently approved site plans is well below 100 sqm then how the owners were allowed stilt floor stage-1st which means site plans were wrongly approved in their favour keeping in view available area at the site.
GY CORRESPONDENT
jammu, jul 9
Notwithstanding Golden Yug daily English Newspaper published a detailed story on 7-6-2024 that violated construction being raised by Sahil Gupta s/o Raj Kumar Gupta at Shop site No.3, Sector-2 measuring 939 Sqft having size 40’ , 8” and 41’ with width 23 ft vide No. 2014/JMC/BS/2023-24 dated 28-3-2024 stage-1st for ground floor only wherein in the approved site plan there is mention of new stilt floor commercial measuring 12.1 Sqm for parking and new ground floor commercial measuring 49.7 Sqm along with pictures. Though Enforcement staff visited site after publishing of story but no action taken and construction continued.
It deserves mentioning here that the owner was mandatory to observe setbacks including front- 3.69 mtr, the maximum height excluding mumty/lift/upto ridge level whichever is applicable of the building 4.5mtr from the front road level. Similarly another site plan approved in the name of Sahil Gupta s/o Raj Kumar Gupta at Shop site No.4, Sector-2 measuring 935 Sqft having size 40’ – 8” with width 23 ft stage-1st ground floor only vide No. 1996/JMC/BS/2023-24 dated 20-3-2024 but in approved site plan it has been shown new stilt floor commercial measuring 12.08 sqm for parking and new ground floor commercial measuring 48.86 Sqm.
The owner was mandatory to observe setbacks including front- 3.72 mtr, the maximum height excluding mumty/lift/upto ridge level whichever is applicable of the building 4.5mtr from the front road level. Likewise one more site plan approved in the name of Ashok Gupta s/o Rattan Lal at shop site No.5, Sector-2 measuring 944 Sqft vide No.44/JMC/BS/2024-25 dated 24-4-2024 stage-1st ground floor only but in approved site plan it has been shown new ground floor commercial measuring 12.01 sqm for parking and new ground floor commercial measuring 49.07 sqm with size 40’ -8” and 41’ with width 23 ft. The owner was mandatory to observe setbacks including front- 3.68 mtr The maximum height excluding mumty/lift/upto ridge level whichever is applicable of the building 4.5mtr from the front road level. Moreover it was wrongly mentioned in approved site plans that front side road is 9 mtr( Approx 30 ft) but at the site the road is hardly 20 ft and also height of stilt floor for parking was not mentioned in approved site plans. Moreover the height of stilt floor was not mentioned in approved site plan which by the way is allowed 2.5 mtr. It deserves mentioning here that now at the site slab work on three commercial shops ground floor completed couple of days back but the construction raised at the site is contrary to approved site plan as there is no visibility of any stilt floor at the site . Moreover the construction at the site is joint one with common walls common pillars and a joint slab with common height when three differently approved site plans were clubbed to manage more space and covered maximum area leaving marginally space including Shop No.3, 3.69 x 7.2 mtr when three differently approved site plans had different area to be left from front side including Shop No.4, 3.72 x 7.2 mtr and in case of Shop No.5 ,the area to be left from front side was 3.69x 7.2 mtr but at the site the ground floor construction at the site is in same symmetry in a single line.
Worthwhile to mention here that these three differently approved site plans as mentioned above basically belongs to one family as in two approved site plans one name is common that is Sahil Gupta and third plot also a part of same family. Further as the ongoing construction belongs to single family, these three differently approved site plans were clubbed at the site with common walls and common pillars. Moreover as per approved site plan , the construction of stilt floor for parking is not at all visible at sites and from a look at ongoing construction there is no possibility now that stilt floors can be constructed. But surprisingly the enforcement staff deputed in the area hasn’t taken any cognizance of ongoing construction how three differently approved site plans were clubbed at the site and why no stilt floor for parking were not constructed at the site showing and proving their close proximity with owners at the cost of JMP-2032 and Unified Building Bye-laws 2021.
It is important to mention here that as per Table 5.4 under Unified Building Bye-laws 2021, in case of commercial construction up to 100 sqm ,the ground coverage is allowed only 70%, FAR 210 and construction so allowed is ground plus two floors and neither basement nor stilt floor is allowed up to 100 sqm. It is surprising to note that area in case of three differently approved site plans is well below 100 sqm then how the owners were allowed stilt floor which means site plans were wrongly approved in their favour keeping in view available area at the site.
It deserves mentioning here that Raj Kumar Gupta father of Sahil Gupta is very influential and a well off person having prominent properties in Channi Himmat area namely 275/4,276/4 and 277/4 measuring 30×55 Sqft each wherein at present clubbing these plots running Ambika Super Shoppe on two floors. It is vital to mention here that Raj Kumar Gupta is attorney holder of Plot No. 275/4, Veena Gupta wife of Raj Kumar Gupta is attorney holder of 277/4 and Sahil Gupta is attorney holder of 276/4. This has been done as these plots were not transferred by Housing Board Jammu in his name as he violated lease deeds. Further Raj Kumar Gupta has recently purchased a plot 242/6 measuring 50×100 in Channi Himmat Housing Board colony in the name of his son Sahil Gupta from original alottee Sudesh Kumar Gupta s/o Lal Chand costing worth crores.
Raj Kumar Gupta is a habitual offender and master of raising violated construction with active connivance of enforcement staff which is evident from the fact that he was served BOCA notice under provision of section 7(3) vide No.MJ/CEO/206/3/2011 dated 24-9-2011 for raising commercial construction on residential plot 275/4 Channi Himmat Housing Board Colony against approved site plan. The owner against this notice approached J&K Special Tribunal in case titled Raj Kumar Gupta Vs BOCA Authority vide File No.STJ/632/2011 dated 30-9-2011 and managed to get compounding of violations as residential but raised commercial construction and as on date using the same for commercial activity and running Ambika Super Shopee .
In light of above Commissioner JMC should take serious cognizance of ongoing construction of three shops after clubbing three differently approved site plans and also as the ongoing construction is not going according to approved site plans as at the site there is no construction of stilt floor for parking and also as per the approved site plan, the clubbed construction can’t be raised as under the situation, it is difficult to maintain setbacks and height as they vary in differently approved site plans. Moreover Commissioner should take to task enforcement staff who visited the site but didn’t report the non-construction of stilt floor parking as the construction has already started from the last 15 days and at present there is no scope for construction of stilt floor for parking.