Agreement to Sell Creates No Right In Property: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Trial Court Order Allowing Vendees To Be Impleaded In Partition Suit Uploading Notice on E-Portal Is Not Service in the Eyes of Law: Jharkhand High Court Quashes Reassessment for Breach of Section 148 Notice Requirements She Had Nothing to Gain, No Reason to Lie: Delhi High Court Upholds Murder Conviction of Husband and Son Solely on Dying Declarations of Burnt Woman Delay in Forwarding Material under Section 19(2) Not Fatal When Grounds of Arrest Are Communicated Immediately: Calcutta High Court Upholds ED Arrest in ₹6210 Crore PMLA Case Disqualification Proceedings Are Not Criminal Trials — Speaker Applied a Flawed Yardstick of ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Speaker’s Order in Defection Case Against AITC-Backed MLA Sales Tax | Furnace Oil Cannot Be Treated As 'Plant and Machinery' Merely Because It Powers the Boiler: Bombay High Court 28 Years of Service Can’t Be Labelled Temporary: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Regularization of Daily Wage Workers in Municipal Water Supply Clause Creating Perpetual Tenancy Is Void Without Registration – Allahabad High Court Rejects Tenant’s Defense Based On Unregistered Rent Deed Delay of Two Years in Lodging FIR Remains Unexplained — No Justification for Further Custody: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail Dismissal of Cheque Bounce Complaint for Default is Acquittal — Victim Can Appeal Without Seeking Leave: Punjab & Haryana High Court Where Victim Is Last Seen With Accused and Dies Soon After, Burden Shifts on Accused Under Section 106 Evidence Act and Section 29 POCSO: Patna High Court Registered Sale Agreement Can Be a Mask for Loan Security, Not a Binding Promise of Sale: Madras High Court Declares Oral Evidence Admissible to Expose Real Intention Personal Hearing Must Be Read Into Every Disciplinary Proceeding, Even If Rules Are Silent: Kerala High Court Cheating Allegations Cannot Be Brushed Aside Merely Because Civil Suits Are Pending: Telangana High Court Cyber Fraud Cannot Be Treated as a Mere Private Dispute Resolved by Money: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Despite Compromise Presumption Under Section 113-B Cannot Arise Without Proof of Dowry Harassment Soon Before Death: Allahabad High Court Upholds Acquittal in Dowry Death Case Conviction Cannot Rest on Recovery Alone from Shared Space: Supreme Court Acquits Man Accused of Murder Expert Opinion Is Weak Evidence – Dying Declaration Without Corroboration Cannot Convict: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Man Accused of Wife’s Murder Order VIII Rule 1 Is Directory in Non-Commercial Suits—Striking Off Defence Without Considering Section 8 Arbitration Application Not Sustainable: Punjab and Haryana High Court Title Perfected Under Tenancy Act Cannot Be Reopened by Civil Court Without Proof of Fraud: Bombay High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Harassment Alone Isn’t Enough — There Must Be a Direct and Proximate Act That Drives Suicide: Gujarat High Court Acquits Accused in Section 306 IPC Case Police Report Is Not a Valid Complaint under Section 195 CrPC; Cognizance for Section 188 IPC Offence Without Public Servant’s Complaint Is Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court Assessee Cannot Be Asked To Prove 'Source of Source' For Pre-Amendment Loans: Delhi High Court Affirms ITAT Deletion of ₹10 Cr Addition Under Section 68 Statutory Remedies Cannot Be Bypassed by Filing a Writ Petition Years Later: Supreme Court Dismisses Delayed Challenge to Revenue Auction

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