Back
Calcutta High Court Orders to Restore Flat Roof After Reckless Demolition Error Occurred
In a stinging rebuke to municipal authorities, the has ordered the () to restore the roof of a residential flat that was improperly demolished during an enforcement drive. Presiding over the matter, Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury characterized the civic body’s failure to verify basic records before conducting a demolition as a "most reckless manner" of administrative function.
A Costly Oversight
The dispute involved Tapas Mazumdar, who purchased a fourth-floor flat at 138A Ananda Palit Road. Mr. Mazumdar, having complied with all requirements, found his property at the center of a crisis when the initiated against unauthorized constructions allegedly raised by the developer, , on the upper floors.
During the execution of these proceedings, the demolished the roof of the petitioner's flat, which was actually part of a . The initially defended its actions by claiming the had lapsed in , and the authorities were unaware of the sanctioned status of the lower floors during their inspection.
Arguments from the Bench and Bar
The petitioner contended that he had purchased the property in good faith, having been shown a sanctioned plan by the developer. He argued that the municipal authorities failed to conduct , resulting in direct damage to his legally held property.
Conversely, the argued that the demolition was justified as no valid sanction plan was presented during the site inspections. The corporation further relied on the precedent set by the Division Bench in , asserting that once a permit lapses, the municipal body is well within its rights to act against structures not currently covered by a valid permit.
Judicial Scrutiny of Administrative Conduct
The Court flatly rejected the corporation's attempt to justify its actions post-facto. Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury held that an authority cannot support a decision by introducing new justifications via that were not part of the original order. The Court emphasized that the Executive Engineer tasked with the demolition had failed in his basic duty to consult office records, opting instead to plead ignorance.
Key Observations
-
"It is utterly shocking that for an officer of the municipality who passed the order of demolition without bothering to even consult its own records, would take shelter by claiming that none had brought the same to his notice."
-
"It is well-settled that an order passed by an authority which is cannot be supplanted by way of affidavit or otherwise."
-
"The authority concerned while passing such order did not proceed on such premise. There has been no enquiry into the facts as regards the same."
The Relief Ordered
The High Court has directed the to restore the damaged roof of the petitioner’s flat within a strict timeframe of eight weeks. The restoration must be certified by the Executive Engineer to ensure compliance. While the Court declined to adjudicate on the specific claim for damages in , it granted Mr. Mazumdar the liberty to approach the appropriate forum to seek compensation for the losses incurred due to the ’s oversight. This ruling serves as a vital reminder to local authorities that administrative power must be exercised with institutional care rather than reflexive enforcement.
