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

1987 Supreme(Cal) 247

High Court Of Calcutta
Ajit Kumar Sengupta
RAM NATH MEHRA - Appellant
Versus
CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Respondent
Matter 1319  Of  1987
Decided On : 07/17/1987

The Calcutta Municipal Corporation does not have the authority to require a no-objection certificate from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority as a condition for sanctioning a building plan.

Headnote:

CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Building Plan Sanction - No-Objection Certificate from Urban Land Ceiling Authority - Petitioners applied for sanction of building plan to Calcutta Municipal Corporation - Petitioners required to submit no-objection certificate from Urban Land Ceiling Authority - Petitioners challenged requirement - Calcutta Municipal Corporation has no authority to require no-objection certificate from Urban Land Ceiling Authority - Sanction of building plan cannot be refused for failure to submit no-objection certificate.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners applied for sanction of a building plan to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. The Corporation required the petitioners to submit a no-objection certificate from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority. The petitioners challenged this requirement, arguing that the Corporation had no authority to require such a certificate.

Finding of the Court:

The Calcutta Municipal Corporation has no authority to require a no-objection certificate from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority as a condition for sanctioning a building plan. The sanction of a building plan cannot be refused for failure to submit a no-objection certificate.

Issues: Whether the Calcutta Municipal Corporation has the authority to require a no-objection certificate from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority as a condition for sanctioning a building plan.

Ratio Decidendi: The Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and the rules and bye-laws framed thereunder do not provide for the Corporation to require a no-objection certificate from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority. The sanction of a building plan is to be made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules and bye-laws thereunder.

Final Decision: The Calcutta Municipal Corporation's requirement of a no-objection certificate from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority as a condition for sanctioning a building plan is illegal. The Corporation must proceed to accord sanction to the plan in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules without requiring the petitioner to produce any 'no objection' certificate from the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

AJIT KUMAR SENGUPTA, J.


( 1 ) THE Court : The petitioners are the owners of a portion of premises No. 48/1b, Leela Roy Sarani, Calcutta. They submitted a plan to the respondent No. 1, Calcutta Municipal Corporation, for construction of a small one storied house for their own residential purposes.

( 2 ) THE petitioners claim to have complied with all the formalities as required under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and the rules and bye-laws framed. thereunder and furnished all information which were prescribed under the said Act or the said Rules and bye-laws. The respondent Authorities, however, have failed and neglected to sanction the said building plan even after the lapse of two months.

( 3 ) BY a letter, dated 17th February 1987 the Municipal Authorities informed the petitioners that the plans and application submitted under Sections 393 and 394 thereof of the said Act and Rules. 47 to 50 thereunder might. be accepted conditional upon further scrutiny and subject to their fulfilling certain conditions. One of the conditions was compliance with the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act. Apart from the said condition, the petitioners complied with all other conditions as stated in the said letter, dated 17th February 1987.

( 4 ) IN this application the petitioners contend that the Calcutta Municipal Corporation cannot withhold the sanction of the plan on the ground that no-objection certificate has not been furnished from the urban Land Ceiling Authority.

( 5 ) THE question involved in the writ application is whether the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities could compel the petitioners to submit no-objection certificate under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, and on failure of the petitioners to furnish the same, whether Municipal Authority could refuse or withhold sanction of the building plan. According to the writ petitioners, there is no provision under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 which empowers the Municipal Authorities to call for and which obliges the writ petitioners to submit such certificate as a condition for sanction of a building plan in respect of the said premises.

( 6 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the respondents that while dealing with the proposal for sanction of a building plan the Corporation Authorities have to look into various aspects of the matter keeping in view of the relevant provision of the said Act, and rules framed thereunder. The petitioners while submitting the application for sanction of the Building Plan categorically stated therein that no-objection certificate from Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, had been applied for and the said certificate would be submitted shortly. However that was not done. That apart, the petitioners have not complied with all the other conditions. A portion of the said premises No. 48/1b, Lila Roy Sarani has not yet been separated and mutated in favour of the petitioners. The said application was, therefore, accepted conditionally.

( 7 ) THE application for building sanction is required to be submitted under Sections 393 and 394 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 read with rules 47 to 50 of Schedule XVI of Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1977. Section 393 of the said Act 1980 provides that every person who intends to erect a building shall apply for sanction by giving notice in writing of his intention to the Municipal Commissioner in such form and containing such information as may be prescribed and every such notice shall be accompanied by such documents and plans as may be prescribed. Rule 47 (2) of Schedule XVI provides that every person intending to erect a new building or re-erect or make addition or alteration to any building shall send to the Commissioner and application for permission to execute the work with the site plan of the site, a plan of the whole building, separate plans for such floor of the building complete el


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top