Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka 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