Guilt of Medical Negligence Cannot Be Made Out Merely by Allegation Without Expert Evidence: Supreme Court Partially Modifies NCDRC Order in Hospital Liability Case “There Is No Presumption That Property Remains Joint After Partition” – Supreme Court Restores Validity of Sale by Coparcener Holding Self-Acquired Property Fresh Suit Maintainable Even After Rejection of Restoration Application Under Order IX Rule 4 CPC:  Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Decree Restoring Plaintiffs' Rights Academic Futures Can’t Be Sacrificed at the Altar of Lease Formalities: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Save Hotel Management Institute Disregarding a Court's Order May Seem Bold, But the Shadows of Its Consequences Are Long and Cold: Supreme Court Sentences Shaji Augustine for Civil Contempt States Must Act to Eliminate Gender Disparities and Ensure Transparency in Organ Transplants: Supreme Court Issues Comprehensive Directions Deliberate Crushing Under Tractor Wheels Establishes Murder, Not Accident: Allahabad High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 302 IPC Caveat Cannot Be Sidestepped On Ground Of Urgency Or Identity Ambiguity: Calcutta High Court Quashes Injunction Order Passed Without Notice To Caveator Admission by Defendant is the Best Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Reiterates Protection of Possession in Injunction Suits Freedom of Speech Cannot Shield Influencers Who Circulate Unverified Allegations Against Brands: Delhi High Court Talaq-e-Ahsan Is Not Criminalized Under Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Protection under Section 197 CrPC is Not a Cloak for Unlawful Acts Committed Outside Official Duty: Rajasthan High Court Advocate Betraying Client’s Trust to Usurp Property is the Worst Abuse of Professional Ethics: Madras High Court Rent Controller Has No Power To Condone Delay In Filing Leave To Defend Under Section 13-B Rent Act: Punjab and Haryana High Court Partition Deed Must Be Proven By Primary Evidence If Execution Is Disputed: Jharkhand High Court Annuls Appellate Decree

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 News