Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court Election Petition Must Be Presented By Petitioner In Person, Non-Compliance Renders It Liable To Summary Dismissal: Supreme Court Absence Of Recovery Or Evidence Of Stolen Property Precludes Conviction Under Section 394 IPC: Supreme Court

Retaining Unauthorized Construction Without Statutory Provision is Illegal: High Court Rules Against Howrah Municipal Corporation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court directs proceedings under Section 177 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 for illegal additional floor construction.

The High Court at Calcutta has invalidated the Howrah Municipal Corporation’s decision to permit the retention of an unauthorized additional floor beyond the sanctioned G+1 structure at 53, Gopal Banerjee Lane, Howrah. The judgment, delivered by Justice Partha Sarathi Sen, directs the Corporation to initiate proceedings under Section 177 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 against the violators, affirming that the Corporation’s actions were contrary to law.

The writ petition was filed by Sri Subhas Chandra Banerjee and another petitioner, challenging the Howrah Municipal Corporation’s decision to allow private respondents to retain an unauthorized additional floor on a building initially sanctioned for G+1 construction. The Corporation had previously communicated that no revised plan was sanctioned for the additional construction, yet allowed its retention upon payment of fees.

The court emphasized that Sections 174 and 177 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, require prior sanction for any building erection and empower the Commissioner to demolish unauthorized constructions. “The action of the Corporation in regularizing the additional floor without statutory provision is illegal,” the court observed.

Justice Sen meticulously dissected the provisions of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, highlighting that the Act does not permit the regularization of significant unauthorized constructions under the guise of minor deviations. “By no stretch of imagination can the construction of an entire additional floor be considered a minor deviation,” the judgment stated.

The court referred to prior judgments, including Sri Sanjay Kumar Gupta & Ors. V. Howrah Municipal Corporation & Ors. And Tanmoy Moshat v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., which underscored the limitations on the Corporation’s power to regularize unauthorized constructions. The court reaffirmed that the Corporation’s actions must strictly conform to statutory provisions.

The court directed the Commissioner of Howrah Municipal Corporation to initiate proceedings under Section 177 against the private respondents within a month, ensuring a fair hearing to all parties involved. The proceedings are to be concluded within three months, and the decision communicated to all parties.

Justice Sen remarked, “The retention of an unauthorized floor on payment of fees, without statutory backing, is a blatant violation of the law. The Commissioner is duty-bound to demolish such illegal constructions.”

This judgment reinforces the legal framework governing municipal constructions, emphasizing that unauthorized buildings cannot be regularized through administrative fiat. It sets a precedent ensuring that municipal authorities adhere strictly to statutory provisions, thereby upholding the rule of law. The case underscores the judiciary’s role in curbing unauthorized constructions and ensuring urban planning regulations are respected.

 

Date of Decision: June 27, 2024

Sri Subhas Chandra Banerjee and Anr. V. The Howrah Municipal Corporation and Ors.

 

Latest Legal News