Accused Loses Right To Default Bail By Acquiescence If Extension Orders Are Challenged Only After Chargesheet Filing: Supreme Court AP High Court Orders Release Of Vehicle Seized For Mineral Transport Violations Upon Payment Of Penalty, Says Rules Don't Mandate Indefinite Detention Short Time Gap Between 'Last Seen' And Death Clinches Murder Conviction Against Fired Driver: Allahabad High Court Court Must Restore Possession To Dispossessed Party If Ex-Parte Decree Is Set Aside Even If Property Descriptions Differ: Andhra Pradesh High Court Management Cannot Deny Compassionate Appointment Citing Delay If It Failed To Maintain Service Records: Calcutta High Court Long Possession Alone Does Not Establish Tenancy; Burden Of Proof Lies On Person Claiming Status Of Tenant: Bombay High Court Consent Of Minor Immaterial: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction But Acquits Man Of Kidnapping Charges Notional Income Of Minor In Motor Accident Claims Must Be Based On Minimum Wages Of Skilled Workmen: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹56.8 Lakhs Revenue Records Serve Only Fiscal Purpose, Cannot Be Treated As Proof Of Title To Property: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Grant 'Deemed Extension' Of Time For Deposit In Specific Performance Decree: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Becomes Inexecutable If Balance Sale Consideration Not Deposited Within Stipulated Time: Supreme Court Supreme Court Protects MSMEs From Closure Over Missing Environmental Clearance If Pollution Boards Were Unaware Of Requirement Industrial Units Operating With Valid PCB Consents Can't Be Closed Merely For Technical Want Of Prior Environmental Clearance: Supreme Court Punishment On Charge Not Framed In Show Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Supreme Court Reduces Doctor's Penalty To Censure Plea Of Acquiescence Cannot Defeat Lawful Title Claim When Encroachment Is Established: Madras High Court Board Of Revenue Can't Quash Unchallenged Orders While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction: Orissa High Court Penetration To Any Extent Sufficient For Offence Under POCSO Act; Intact Hymen No Bar For Conviction: Meghalaya High Court Expeditious Conclusion Of Summary Force Court Trial Not Arbitrary If Procedure Followed; ITBPF Act Self-Contained: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Doesn't Bar Appeal Filed Prior To Withdrawal Of Earlier Defective Appeal Against Same Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court Appointment Of Receiver Is An 'Extreme Remedy', Cannot Be Ordered Lightly Especially After Decades Of Inaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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