The Corporation authorities are not justified in granting an additional sanction plan without the consent of the co-owners of the building.

Debangsu Basak, J.

The petitioners have questioned the grant of additional sanction plan dated May 3, 2011 to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for construction of the premises. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner is the owner of 50% of such premises. According to the petitioners they did not give consent for obtaining the additional sanction or gave consent for construction. They have sought a declaration that, the first petitioner is the 50% owner of the roof of the building and that, the additional sanction plan is liable to be cancelled.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the first petitioner had purchased a portion of the premises concerned along with the roof rights by virtue of a registered deed of conveyance on July 11, 2009. The first petitioner had applied for mutation with the Corporation authorities. Such mutation was allowed on September 30, 2010. He has submitted, referring to the affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the Corporation authorities that, the Corporation authorities had granted the sanction on November 10, 2010 i.e. after the date of the mutation. The Corporation authorities ought not to have granted such sanction without the consent of the petitioners. He has referred to Section 397 of the Kolkata Municipal Act, 1980 and has submitted that, the additional sanction granted by the Corporation authorities should be rescinded. He has also referred to the Kolkata Corporation Buildings Rules, 1980 particularly Rules 3 and 4 thereof and has submitted that, it was the obligation of the Corporation authorities to enquire into the right to construct before granting the additional sanction to the existing building plan. The Corporation authorities knew that the first petitioner was 50% owner of the premises concerned. The Corporation authorities, therefore, ought not to have granted the additional sanction.

3. The writ petition has been opposed on behalf of the private respondent no. 4 as also the Corporation authorities.

4. Learned Advocate for the Corporation authorities has submitted, referring to the records that, the Corporation had granted additional sanction on the basis of the request made by the owners. The Corporation authorities are not concerned with the private disputes. The writ petition concerns private disputes.

5. Learned Advocate for the respondent No. 4 has referred to the documents giving title to the petitioner. He has referred to the agreement dated July 12, 2009. He has submitted that, the agreement dated July 12, 2009 is between the private respondent and the first petitioner. By such agreement the first petitioner had authorised the private respondent to obtain necessary permission from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for additional plan. The first petitioner had also agreed not to disturb and/or make any illegal and immoral activity to the private respondent in enjoying the remaining 50% of the area. He has submitted that subsequent of such authorization, the private respondent had applied for additional sanction and had made the necessary construction. He has also referred to the deed of conveyance dated July 11, 2009 and has submitted that, the first petitioner is entitled to 50% of the final roof of the building. The agreement dated July 12, 2009 read with the conveyance dated July 11, 2009 allows the first petitioner to enjoy 50% of the final roof. The private respondent has no objection to the first petitioner enjoying the same. The petitioners knew of the sanction plan. Learned Advocate for the private respondent has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that, the second petitioner was a partner of the agency entrusted with the construction. The petitioner, therefore, knew of all the happenings in relation to the construction. The petitioners should not be permitted to contend otherwise.

6. In reply the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners had submitted that, the second petitioner has resigned as a partner from