NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

Unauthorized Construction Must Align with Corporation’s Sanctioned Plan: Cal. High Court Stresses on Compliance with Sanctioned Plans in Construction Disputes

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling on property and construction laws, the High Court at Calcutta in its civil appellate jurisdiction, presided over by Justices M. V. Muralidaran and Arijit Banerjee, emphasized the importance of adhering to sanctioned plans in property development. The case, titled Smt. Chandana Saha & Anr. Vs. Sri Ashok Kumar Roy & Ors. (Case No: FMAT 528 of 2023 + IA No: CAN/1/2023), revolved around a dispute concerning unauthorized construction in the “Hiralal Commercial Complex” at Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Kolkata.

The appellants, Smt. Chandana Saha and another, challenged the order dated October 12, 2023, which allowed an injunction application by the respondents in Title Suit No.697 of 2023. The primary issue was the alleged unauthorized modifications by the plaintiffs to their property unit, which was objected to by the defendants on the grounds of non-compliance with the Kolkata Municipal Corporation’s sanctioned plan.

In its observation, the Court remarked on the criticality of adhering to authorized plans, stating, “Unauthorized construction must align with the Corporation’s sanctioned plan.” This directive underlines the Court’s focus on maintaining legal and regulatory compliance in property alterations and constructions.

The Court expressed surprise and concern over the inaction of the concerned Executive Engineer, following a prior direction for a spot inspection to verify the claims of unauthorized construction. It was expected that a final reasoned order from the Executive Engineer would be filed by December 16, 2023, for review in the next hearing scheduled for December 18, 2023.

The judgment further clarifies that any further construction or alteration by the respondents must comply with the outcome of the appeal. In essence, if the alterations are found deviating from the sanctioned plan at the appeal’s disposal, they would need to be undone.

Date of Decision: December 1, 2023

Smt. Chandana Saha & Anr.  Vs. Sri Ashok Kumar Roy & Ors.

Latest Legal News