IMPORTANT POINT
Under the provisions of the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, the concerned authority while dealing with an application for permission is to have regard to the provisions of the development plan, if it has come into force, if not, then any other material consideration.

Headnote:(i) West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979-Sections 46, 51, 53, 54-Permission for Development-Gram Panchayat sanctioned a plan to construct five stories for construction of Hotel Sea Gull-Hotel comprising of ground floor and first floor constructed -Notice u/s 54 of 1979 Act to appellant requiring it to discontinue unauthorised construction of building-Appellant not stopping further construction-Notice u/s 53(1) to demolish second floor construction-Notices issued on ground that permission for development u/s 46, as required had not been obtained by appellant-Whether permission u/s 46 is required for development of existing building or for development of vacant land only?-Whether permission u/s 46 required even in absence of development plan? -(Yes).
       Held : The raising of further construction over the existing first floor of the hotel building clearly amounts to "building operations", and is thus "development" in, on, over, the land in question. More particularly, when the same amounts to material alteration and enlargement of the existing building and roofing of the same within the meaning of sub-sections (3), (7) and (12) of Section 2 and Section 46 of the Act. That being so, permission under section 46 is clearly required for development of the existing hotel building. (Para 20)
       In Section 46(1) of the Act, it has clearly been provided that any person or body intending to carry out any development of any land shall make an application... for permission in terms thereof. There is no indication in the said section that the section would not apply in the absence of a development plan. Sub-section 3(i) of section 46 provides that the concerned authority in dealing with an application for permission would have regard to the provisions of the development plan, if it has come into operation and any other material consideration. [Clause (b) of section 46(3)(i) has now been substituted by Act No. 26/94]. (Para 21)
       After the applicability of the Act to Mouza Gobinda Basan with effect from 20th November, 1990, any sanction obtained from the Panchayat which ran contrary to the interim provisions of the development plan under preparation could not continue by reason only of the fact that permission, approval or sanction under any other law for the development had been obtained. Fresh approval was required to be taken. Otherwise it would be negation of provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 137. (Para 29)
       (ii) Words and Phrases-Word expedient -Meaning-Word occurring in West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, authorising modification, revocation under the circumstances would comprehend whatever is suitable and appropriate for any reason for accomplishment of specified object. (Para 25)

JUDGMENT

Bhan, J.-The appellant (writ petitioner before the High Court) being aggrieved by the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Calcutta whereunder the Division Bench overturning the decision of the Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition has come up in this appeal.

2. On 19th January, 1990 Padima (II) Gram Panchayat sanctioned a plan to construct five stories (Ground floor + 4 floors) for the construction of Hotel Sea Gull through its owner Malay Kumar Guha under the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. The Hotel comprising of ground floor and first floor constructed in pursuance of the said sanction is situated in Mouza Gobindabasan, District Midnapore, West Bengal. On 28th November, 1990 Government of West Bengal constituted Digha Planning Authority-respondent No. 2 for the planned development of Digha Township, District Midnapore, West Bengal. By a Notification of the even date Government of West Bengal brought Mouza Gobindabasan under Respondent No. 2. In February, 1991 Respondent No. 2 notified guidelines for the development in Digha Planning Area - interim provisions under Section 56 of the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as, the 1979 Act ) pending preparation of development plan for securing proper planning and development of Digha Planning Area.

3. On 7th June, 1991 Sushil Pal Chowdhuary and Dulal Pal Chowdhuary purchased the appellant Hotel (ground floor + 1st floor) from Malay Kumar Guha. In the first week of July, 1992 the appellant started construction of the second floor on the existing hotel building. Respondent No. 2 on 24th July, 1992 issued notice under Section 54 of the 1979 Act to the appellant requiring it to discontinue unauthorised construction of the building. In spite of service of the said notice the appellant did not stop further construction; so on 31st August, 1992, respondent No. 2, issued notice under Section 53(1) of the 1979 Act to the appellant to demolish the construction of the second floor of the said building and to remove the same within one month from the date of receipt of the said notice. The appellant did not submit the report to the said notice to Respondent No. 2. On 4th September, 1992 the appellant filed writ petition challenging the said notices before the Calcutta High Court. A Single Judge on 24th September, 1992 passed interim order permitting the appellant to complete construction of second floor on the condition that it will not claim any equity whatsoever. On 22nd December, 1992 the Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside both the notices and permitted the appellant to construct as per sanctioned plan of Gram Panchayat. Respondent No. 2 filed the appeal challenging the judgment of the Single Judge.

4. On 20th March, 2002 the Governor of West Bengal accorded approval under Section 37(1) of the 1979 Act to the Land Use and Development Control Plan (Development Plan) for Digha Planning Area.

5. By notice (Annexure A) under Section 54 the appellant was directed to discontinue further construction of the building forthwith and report compliance and if the construction was not suspended forthwith and compliance reported within 24 hours, it was stated that the competent authority would be compelled to remove the unauthorised constructions as per provisions of the 1979 Act. And, by the subsequent notice under Section 53(1) the competent authority required the appellant to demolish the construction undertaken by it. It was stated in the said notice that it was mandatory to obtain permission in writing under Section 46 for undertaking development by way of construction on the existing Hotel building, and that the appellant did not desist from carrying on the work of construction despite notice to stop from doing so under section 54, necessitating the issuance of the subsequent notice under Section 53(1). A combined reading of the two impugned notices under sections 54 and 53(1) makes it amply clear t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document