High Court Of Calcutta
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
ABL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Respondent
W. P. 568 Of 2006
Decided On : 09/01/2006
KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT - SECTION 392, 396, 543(2), 610 - BUILDING RULES, 1990 - RULE 15(2), 38, 39 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 265 - Petitioners constructed unauthorized construction on the terrace of a multi-storeyed building without obtaining sanction from the municipal authority. The Municipal authority initiated demolition proceedings under section 400(1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, and passed an order allowing the petitioners to retain the construction subject to payment of erection/re-erection charges and car parking fees. The petitioners challenged the legality of the demand raised by the Municipal authority for payment of various charges, including sanction fees, drainage development fees, surcharge development fees, and D/sketch fees, contending that such demand was not in accordance with the order passed by the Special Officer (B).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners constructed unauthorized construction on the terrace of a multi-storeyed building without obtaining sanction from the municipal authority. The Municipal authority initiated demolition proceedings under section 400(1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, and passed an order allowing the petitioners to retain the construction subject to payment of erection/re-erection charges and car parking fees. The petitioners challenged the legality of the demand raised by the Municipal authority for payment of various charges, including sanction fees, drainage development fees, surcharge development fees, and D/sketch fees.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Municipal authority was authorized to demand building permit fees for regularizing the unauthorized construction, but such fees could not be charged at the penal rate. The Court also held that the other charges demanded by the Municipal authority, such as drainage development fees, surcharge development fees, and D/sketch fees, were not authorized under the statute and could not be realized from the petitioners. However, the Court directed the petitioners to pay the car parking fees in terms of the order passed by the Special Officer (B).
Issues: 1. Whether the Municipal authority was authorized to demand building permit fees for regularizing the unauthorized construction? 2. Whether the Municipal authority was authorized to demand other charges, such as drainage development fees, surcharge development fees, and D/sketch fees, for regularizing the unauthorized construction? 3. Whether the petitioners were liable to pay the car parking fees in terms of the order passed by the Special Officer (B)?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, authorizes the Municipal authority to demand building permit fees for grant of sanction for construction. 2. The Municipal authority is not authorized under the statute to realize any charges other than building permit fees for regularizing unauthorized construction. 3. The petitioners are liable to pay the car parking fees in terms of the order passed by the Special Officer (B), as such order is binding upon both the parties.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned bill/demand raised by the Municipal authority. The Municipal authority was directed to raise a demand afresh in the light of the observations made by the Court.
( 1 ) THE petitioners constructed about 12,480 sq. ft. on the terrace of the tenth floor of a multi-storeyed building known as "air Conditioned market" at Shakespeare Sarani without obtaining any sanction from the municipal authority. Such construction was raised in early 1980. The annual valuation of such illegal construction was assessed by the Municipal authority for the first time for the Assessment Period commencing from GR4/84-85. Rates and taxes in respect of such unauthorised construction has also been realised regularly by the Municipal authority from the petitioners since then.
( 2 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, a demolition proceeding being Demolition Case No. 137-D/2002-03 was initiated under section 400 (1) of the Kolkata Municipal corporation Act by the Municipal authority. The said proceeding was disposed of by the Special Officer, Building on 18th February, 2003 with the following orders :"1]. (a) The P. Rs. shall retain the impugned construction shown in red colour in the D/sketch of D/case No. 137-D/2002-03 of Bor.-VII subject to payment of erection/re-erection charges at commercial rates. (b) The P. Rs. shall pay for non-provision of 16 Nos. of car parking spaces to be charged @ Rs. 60,000/- per car parking space. 2]. The P. Rs. shall carry out the orders within one month from the date of its communication failing which the orders shall become inoperative and all the impugned constructions marked in red colour in the D/sketch of D/case No. 137-D/2002-03 shall be subject to demolition at the cost and risk of the P. Rs. 3]. The P. Rs. shall swear an affidavit before Magistrate 1st Class to the effect that they shall abide by the existing rules and regulations of CMC and shall not take recourse to anything which may tantamount to violation of the CMC Act, 1980 and Building Rules, 1990 and shall also be held responsible for any misrepresentation of records. 4]. The P. Rs. shall submit a certificate obtained from CMC empanelled structural Engineer certifying therein the aspect of structural stability as well as the workmanship and quality of materials so far used in the construction of the premises. 5]. The copy of the order shall be communicated to the P. Rs. as well as the E. E. Bor.-VII for information and necessary action. Each page of the order is signed and the D/ Sketch as well as precis countersigned. "
( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY the said order was accepted by the petitioners as well as by the Municipal authority.
( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, a dispute arose when the Municipal authority in pursuance of the order of demolition passed by the Special Officer (B) dated 18th February, 2003 in a proceeding under section 400 (1) of the Kolkata municipal Corporation Act, 1980, raised a bill of charges and/or fees upon the petitioners for payment thereof as a condition for retention of such unauthorised construction. The following charges were demanded from the petitioners towards the retention fees of the unauthorised construction :
(1) Sanction of fees Rs . 55,50,923. 00 (2) Drainage Dev. fees Rs . 1,11,532. 00 (3) (WT+st+w. S.) Rs . 3,17,865. 00 (4) Surcharge Dev. fees Rs . 6,13,423. 00 (5) Short fall of 16 Nos. Car Park Rs . 9,60,000. 00 (6) D/sketch fees Rs . 8,000. 00 Total Rs. 75,61,743. 00
( 5 ) THE legality of the aforesaid demand has been challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition on the ground that such demand was not raised in conformity with the order passed by the Special Officer (B) on 18th february, 2003.
( 6 ) MR. Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that Article 265 of the Constitution of India imposes a restriction on levy and collection of taxes except by authority of law. Relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs. Sharadkumar, reported in air 1992 SC 2038, Mr. Mukherjee submitted that in the absence of express provision, a delegated authority cannot impose tax or fe
Referred to : Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs. Sharadkumar
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.