The Calcutta Municipal Corporation cannot insist on the production of a "no objection certificate" from the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, as a condition for sanctioning a building plan.

A. K. CHAKRAVARTY, J.

( 1 ) -THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 7th April, 1993 passed by the learned Trial Judge in matter No. 1008 of 1993 (West Bengal properties and another v. States of West Bengal and others ).

( 2 ) FACTS giving rise of this appeal are as follows : petitioner No. 1 which is a limited Company with its Office at 16, Alipore Road, Calcutta and is the owner of the said premises (hereinafter to be referred as the said premises), submitted a plan for construction of a two-storeyed building before the respondent authorities along with a deposit of Rs. 10/- on 24. 9. 92 as application fees. By letter dated 13. 12. 92, the said authorities informed that certain other formalities have got to be complied with and after due compliance of those formalities by its letter dated 22nd December, 1992 submitted a revised plan. Since the respondent authorities have not sanctioned the plan in spite of due compliance of all formalities, it enquired about the matter and came to know from the respondent authorities that the plan was not being sanctioned as 'no objection certificate' from the Land Ceiling Authorities have not been appended to the application for sanction of the plan. The petitioner has challenged that respondent authority has no legal justification for insisting on production of such certificate from the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities that there is no reason for withholding sanction of the building plan of the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly moved a writ petition before the learned Trial Judge and by his order dated 29. 3. 93 on the basis of his observations that the specific case of the petitioners being that the plan has obtained the clearance of the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities directed the Municipal Authorities to produce the records relating to the plan submitted by the petitioners. Learned Trial Judge, however, by another order dated 7. 4. 93, directed to respondents to file their affidavit-in-opposition on 26. 4. 93 as the observations in his earlier order that the specific case of the petitioners was that the clearance certificate has been obtained from the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities was erroneous.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Trial Judge, the petitioners has preferred this appeal alleging, inter alia, that the petitioners have neither any land beyond its permissible ceiling limit nor the respondent authorities have any right or justification to insist upon the clearance or no objection certificate from the Land Ceiling Authorities under the relevant Calcutta Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 1990.

( 4 ) MR. Mukul Gopal Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners drew our attention to sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of C. M. C. Building Rules, 1990, which runs as follows, "in case of a site or a plot covered by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (33 of 1976), the notice shall be accompanied by a declaration of the applicant that his exclusive right to erect, re-erect or alter any building or portion thereof is not affected under that Act". For that purpose, our attention was drawn to the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that there they have no vacant land or any other land with building therein in any of the Urban agglomeration covered of the said Act and that in the event of the aforesaid land being declared to be in excess by the competent authority under the Urban Land (ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the petitioners shall abide by the direction of the competent authority under the Act. The petitioner have, therefore, nothing more to do in the matter of sanction of that plan and the respondent authorities, according to Mr. Banerjee, had no justification for withholding the sanction of the plan in question.

( 5 ) MR. Mihir Kr. Roy, learned Counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 2, however, had two-fold submissions to make in the matter. His first submission was that by the no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document