Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna

“Executive Recommendations Cannot Override The Statutory Scheme Of Building Regulation”, In a significant judgment on the limits of executive power and protection of property rights, the Calcutta High Court held that municipal authorities cannot impose conditions in building plan sanctions merely on the basis of police security recommendations when such conditions lack statutory backing.

On 11 March 2026, the Calcutta High Court in Ambee Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Commissioner of Police, Kolkata & Ors. addressed the legality of several security-related conditions imposed on a residential construction located within 500 metres of the State Secretariat “Nabanna”, a notified security zone. Justice Gaurang Kanth held that while security concerns are legitimate, executive inputs cannot expand statutory powers or override the legislative framework governing building permissions.

The Court observed that statutory authorities must operate strictly within the powers granted by law, and any restriction affecting property rights or development must be supported by clear legislative authority.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from a proposal to construct a G+4 residential building at Kshetra Mohan Banerjee Lane, Howrah, situated within a 500-metre radius of Nabanna, which had been declared a “Security Zone” by notification dated 04.09.2019 under the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.

The property owner entered into a development agreement with Ambee Engineering Pvt. Ltd. for demolition of an old structure and construction of a 15.49-metre-high residential building.

Under Section 244 of the Act, buildings within the security zone are restricted only by a maximum height limit of 15.5 metres. The proposed structure complied with this statutory requirement and all other building regulations.

However, while granting sanction on 24 September 2024, the Howrah Municipal Corporation imposed seventeen conditions, several of which were based on security inputs from police authorities responsible for protecting the Nabanna Secretariat.

Aggrieved by these additional restrictions, the owner and developer approached the Calcutta High Court challenging the legality of the conditions.

“Statutory Authorities Can Act Only Within The Four Corners Of The Law”

While analysing the statutory scheme, the Court emphasised that the Municipal Commissioner possesses the authority to regulate construction only to the extent permitted by statute.

The Court clarified that Sections 243 and 244 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act regulate building height within notified security zones, and the legislature had deliberately limited security-based restrictions to this parameter.

The Court held that expanding these restrictions through executive instructions would amount to creating new legal requirements outside the statute.

Justice Gaurang Kanth observed that executive recommendations, even when based on security considerations, cannot override the legislative scheme governing building permissions.

The Court relied on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P., reiterating that administrative action cannot curtail lawful proprietary rights in the absence of statutory authority.

“Security Concerns Cannot Justify Destruction Of Basic Building Norms”

One of the impugned conditions required the developer to construct a ten-foot-high “view cutter” on the roof and prohibited windows or balconies facing the security zone.

The Court found these restrictions fundamentally inconsistent with building regulations requiring adequate ventilation and light in residential structures.

Justice Kanth noted that the applicable building rules mandate openings and windows for habitability, and therefore a blanket prohibition on windows or balconies would directly contradict mandatory building norms.

The Court observed that imposing such architectural restrictions would effectively destroy the statutory framework governing safe and habitable buildings, making them legally unsustainable.

“Condition Requiring Character Verification Of Residents Is Alien To Building Law”

Another controversial condition required verification of the “character antecedents” of all existing and future occupants of the building.

The Court strongly criticised this requirement, holding that building regulations concern structures and compliance with planning laws, not the identity or background of occupants.

Justice Kanth held that introducing such a requirement would effectively create a system of mandatory police clearance for residential occupancy, which has no foundation in the statute governing building permissions.

The Court further held that such a condition intrudes into personal liberty and privacy protected under Article 21 of the Constitution and therefore cannot be justified under the building sanction regime.

“Restrictions Must Be Proportionate And Supported By Law”

The High Court also applied the doctrine of proportionality, holding that even legitimate security concerns must be addressed through least intrusive and legally authorised means.

The Court observed that security agencies already possess powers to conduct surveillance and maintain vigilance in sensitive areas. However, imposing structural restrictions on private property based on speculative threats would disproportionately interfere with lawful property rights.

Justice Kanth held that allowing authorities to impose such conditions would effectively permit executive discretion to override statutory rights, which would be contrary to Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution.

Setting aside the impugned conditions, the Court held that municipal authorities cannot impose non-statutory conditions in building sanctions merely on the basis of executive security recommendations.

The Court therefore quashed Condition Nos. 4, 5 and 16 of the sanction order dated 24 September 2024, which required installation of a view cutter, prohibition of windows and balconies facing the security zone, and mandatory police verification of residents.

The remaining conditions were allowed to remain in force, and the authorities were directed to finalise the building plan sanction without insisting on the quashed conditions within twelve weeks.

The judgment reaffirms a fundamental principle of constitutional governance that executive discretion must remain subordinate to statutory authority and cannot arbitrarily interfere with property rights or civil liberties.

Date of Decision: 11 March 2026