Back
Building Owner Can't Use Roof Repair Permit as Shield for Total Demolition:
has upheld a two-year simple imprisonment sentence imposed on a building owner who completely demolished an existing two-storey structure and erected an unauthorised multi-storeyed concrete framework under the cover of a municipal permit that was strictly limited to "reconstruction of roofs only."
The court also affirmed a fine of ₹50,000 and a demolition directive under the Act, 1980.
The Case Background
The dispute concerns premises at 167, Muktaram Babu Street, Kolkata. Archana Agarwal purchased the property on , and obtained a KMC sanction plan on . The plan explicitly permitted only "reconstruction of roofs" of the existing two-storeyed structure, with supervision by a Licensed Building Surveyor (LBS) and Empanelled Structural Engineer (ESE).
However, during a spot inspection on , KMC Assistant Engineer Gopal Kumar Paul found that the entire original building had been demolished down to its base, and a fresh structural framework with heavy RCC columns and tie beams was being raised without structural stability certificates, soil testing, or LBS/ESE supervision. A complaint led to Case No. 45 of 2019, and a charge sheet under was filed.
The trial court convicted Agarwal on , sentencing her to two years' simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000, along with ordering demolition of the unauthorised structure under read with . The appellate court upheld the conviction on .
Arguments Presented
, representing Agarwal, argued that the construction was covered by the sanctioned permit and that RCC columns and tie beams were engineering necessities for reconstruction. He contended that the prosecution failed to produce scientific evidence like material strength reports or soil tests to establish danger, and that subsequent regularization and compounding under should extinguish criminal liability. He also challenged the proportionality of the sentence and the demolition order.
, appearing for the State and KMC, defended the concurrent findings, arguing that the permit was for roof reconstruction only, not total demolition. She submitted that the prosecution's ocular, documentary, and expert evidence sufficiently established the unauthorised construction and public hazard. She relied on the 's decision in to argue that subsequent regularization does not wipe out criminal conviction.
Legal Analysis
Justice Uday Kumar rejected the petitioner's arguments on all counts. The court held that a restricted permit for roof reconstruction cannot serve as a
"
"
for completely demolishing the existing structure and raising an un-engineered concrete skeleton. The court found that the prosecution was not required to produce scientific reports when the evidence of municipal engineers and expert witnesses clearly established the dangerous deviation.
On the effect of regularization, the court applied the 's ruling in
G. Mohandas
, holding that administrative compounding under Section 621(2) operates only in the civil and revenue sphere and cannot
a criminal conviction.
"Civil and municipal compounding mechanisms operate exclusively in the administrative and revenue spheres, whereas a criminal conviction addresses the completed infraction of
,"
the court observed.
Regarding the demolition order, the court clarified that are that attach automatically upon conviction and do not require a separate substantive charge.
On the sentence, the court declined to reduce the imprisonment to a mere fine, stating that doing so would allow wrongdoers to "" of criminal culpability, contrary to the deterrent mandate of municipal criminal jurisprudence.
Key Observations
The court made several notable observations:
"A restricted, minor municipal permit for 'reconstruction of roofs only' cannot under any principle of law, equity, or engineering serve as a
to completely demolish an existing load-bearing structure and construct an un-engineered multi-storied concrete framework."
"
or the payment of
under
cannot retroactively erase, nullify, or set aside a validly recorded criminal conviction and sentence for an offence already completed."
"When a violator engages in the
... reducing the sentence to a mere monetary fine would allow wrongdoers to '
' of criminal culpability."
Court's Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, affirming the concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence. The court directed the Municipal Commissioner to act strictly in accordance with the demolition order after the expiry of the statutory appeal period. The interim order was vacated, and no costs were imposed.
The decision reinforces that municipal permits cannot be misused for large-scale unauthorised construction, and that subsequent regularization cannot shield criminal liability. It underscores the judiciary's commitment to urban discipline and public safety.
