Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

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.

 

Similar News