• SELECT CATAGORY

Court Say's Man To Remove Mobile Tower From Building

NEW DELHI: A mobile tower has become the bone of contention between two neighbours. After a man complained that a mobile tower and generator on the roof of his neighbour’s house were creating “nuisance and disturbance”, a trial court has directed the landowner to remove the tower and generator from his building.

Refusing to grant relief to the owner of the building, additional sessions judge T R Naval upheld an executive magistrate’s order for removal of the tower and generator from there. “I do not find any infirmity or impropriety in the order of sub-divisional magistrate (SDM). Therefore, revision petition is not maintainable at this stage and is hereby dismissed,” the ASJ said.

The neighbour had argued that the installation of tower and generator on the building’s roof was causing damage to his building which developed cracks and the generator “was creating nuisance and disturbance”.

Satya Prakash, a resident of east Delhi, had filed a complaint to SDM of Preet Vihar saying Hargyan Singh had installed a mobile tower along with a generator on his building’s roof and it was troubling the neighbours.

The SDM, in an order dated February 17, had directed Singh to remove the tower and generator from the roof within a week and had asked him to appear before it, to explain why the order should not be made absolute, if he raises objection. The SDM had also sought a compliance report from Singh. that he had stopped creating the said nuisance.

Challenging the order, Singh had approached the session court saying installation of mobile tower in the neighbourhood is an asset and not a public nuisance.

“The mobile tower was set up after checking the viability of the building and it was done after following the procedure involved in installation of mobile pole as per technical parameters,” Singh deposed before the court.

The court, however, was not satisfied with his arguments and dismissed his plea. “I find that the SDM, on receipt of the complaint, passed the conditional order, and the final order is yet to be passed after hearing the revisionist (Singh). He may take appropriate plea before the SDM, who is supposed to deal with all the pleas taken by Singh and then pass the appropriate order,” the court said.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: