SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 359

B. N. SRIKRISHNA, R. C. LAHOTI, H. K. SEMA
DEBASHIS ROY – Appellant
Versus
CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION – Respondent


ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. There is a property known as Vivek Vihar, Premises No. 13/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta. The property is situated in a prime locality of the cosmopolitan city of Calcutta. The owner-cum-builder constructed the multi-storeyed building which, as we are told, consists of 7 storeys and 27 flats. When the building plans were initially sanctioned by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, a substantial area on the ground floor was shown as parking space. We are told that during the course of the hearing that most of the flat-owners have purchased and paid for individual parking space. Nevertheless, the disputed portion of the ground floor was shown in the plan as parking space.

3. In the year 1994, the building owner is alleged to have entered into an agreement for sale of little less than 2000 sq ft area of the ground floor in favour of Respondent 6, M/s Maitry Resources Pvt. Ltd. It is also not in dispute that till date there is no deed of sale executed by the owner in favour of Respondent 6. On 19-2-2001, Respondent 6 moved an application to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation seeking change of use under Section 416 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation A









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top