Violation of MUDA Building Bylaws
SHILLONG: As many as three categories of 33 persons including former Urban Affairs Minister Ampareen Lyngdoh have been named as violators of MUDA Building Bylaws in the final report submitted by the CBI before the High Court of Meghalaya on Friday.
The report was submitted before the Full Bench of the High Court during the final hearing of the pending PIL on high rise buildings in the city on Friday.
However, the Court has reserved the order since it has to go through the report minutely.
Earlier, during the hearing of the case on November 20, the Court had asked the CBI to make three separate lists in the category of persons involved in the violation of the Building Bylaws.
According to sources, as per the report, in the three categories of violators, as many as nine MUDA officials, who had given permission illegally to construct the buildings beyond the ground floor plus 3 (G+3), have been named.
The name of cabinet minister Ampareen Lyngdoh, who was holding the charge of Urban and Municipal Affairs, is highlighted since she was part of a few Building Committees, which had given sanction to construct buildings beyond the prescribed limit.
The second category of the people who violated the Bylaws include 13 land/building owners who had constructed their buildings beyond the prescribed limit though MUDA granted permission only for construction of ground floor plus three more floors.
The third category consists names of many as 11 enforcement staff of MUDA who were supposed to check the construction of buildings and their progress, but failed to do so, thereby allowing the owners of buildings to carry on with the constructions illegally.
Earlier on September 28, the High Court while ordering the demolition of additional floors of several out of the 24 listed buildings constructed beyond ground floor plus 3, had asked the CBI to register preliminary enquiry against the officers of MUDA who granted permissions for construction to the concerned respondents and “by their acts of commission and omission benefitted the respondents and also others whose buildings could not be brought to the notice of the Court during the consideration of the case”.
The High Court had also said that the “CBI shall also proceed against such builders and other persons who have been or were likely to be benefitted by such acts of commission and omission on the part of the officers of MUDA during the course of enquiry”.
Subsequently, though many owners of buildings got interim relief from the Supreme Court against demolition of buildings, the apex court, however, did not interfere with the CBI probe as ordered by the High Court.