Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court

Renovation/Repairing Work Not Contrary to Provisions of Law; Cannot Be Treated as Unauthorized: Calcutta High Court Upholds Legality of Construction at Bidhan Sarani Premises

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the legality of renovation and construction work at premises no. 99A and 99C, Bidhan Sarani, Kolkata. The court confirmed that the renovations undertaken were within the bounds of the law, thereby upholding the earlier decision of the Single Judge.

The appeal contested the Single Judge’s ruling regarding construction and renovation work which was alleged to be unauthorized and contrary to the provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (KMC Act) and Building Rules under the KMC Act. However, the High Court’s judgment affirmed that the activities undertaken were legally permissible.

The appellant, Smt. Pritha Nandy, contested the legality of the renovation works done by the respondents, arguing they exceeded the permissible limits under local municipal regulations and involved unauthorized alterations such as the demolition of partition walls and the erection of steel joists. The property in question, shared with her sister-in-law and other tenants, was under dispute in multiple civil suits concerning property rights and tenant evictions.

Issue of Unauthorized Construction: The court noted the expert report from the Director General, Building, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, which stated that the renovations including the installation of steel joists and the demolition of partition walls were necessary for structural safety and did not violate municipal law.

Compliance with Building Rules and KMC Act: The court analyzed the Building Rules and provisions of the KMC Act. The Director General’s report concluded that the construction was to secure the building and ensure the safety of its occupants and the public.

Property Rights and Civil Litigation: The High Court emphasized that the focus of their judgment was on municipal and safety compliance and not on resolving the broader property dispute, which was already the subject of ongoing civil litigation.

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the renovation and construction at the disputed property were legally permissible. The court underscored compliance with local municipal standards and upheld the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petitions.

Date of Decision: May 10, 2024

Smt. Pritha Nandy Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Latest Legal News