IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
I.P. MUKERJI, J.
Smt. Anupama Agarwal & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
South Dum Dum Municipality & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 3807 (W) of 2016
Decided On : 15-12-2016
MUNICIPAL LAW - WEST BENGAL MUNICIPAL ACT, 1993 - SECTIONS 200, 218, 220 - CHANGE OF USE OF BUILDING - CONSTRUCTION IN CAR PARKING SPACE - PROCEDURE FOR DEMOLITION - INTERIM ORDER TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, owners of a flat in a building, were accused by the respondents, other flat owners, of illegally constructing a room in the car parking space of the building. The petitioners claimed that they had only erected a temporary wooden partition wall, installed a wooden almirah, and other furniture for the use of their children and servant. The South Dum Dum Municipality issued a stop-work notice and later passed an order directing the petitioners to remove the construction. The petitioners challenged this order in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the impugned order of demolition had been issued by the Chairman of the Municipality without following the correct procedure. The Court held that the case was partially covered by Section 200 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, which prohibits the change of use of a building without the written permission of the Chairman. The Court also held that the Board of Councillors had the power to impose a fine against the defaulter and to stop the illegal construction under Section 200(5) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order of demolition was passed in accordance with the law? 2. Whether the petitioners had changed the use of the car parking space in violation of Section 200 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993?
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the impugned order was not passed in accordance with the law as the Chairman of the Municipality had not followed the correct procedure. The Court held that the petitioners had prima facie made construction against the building plan and changed the use of the building in violation of Sections 218(1) and 200 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993. However, the Court held that the petitioners should be given an opportunity to answer the case and defend themselves before the Board of Councillors.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Board of Councillors of South Dum Dum Municipality to issue an appropriate notice to the petitioners under Sections 218(1) and 200(5) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993. The Court directed the Board to dispose of the case by a reasoned order within 4 months from the date of communication of the order. The Court also directed the petitioners to maintain the status quo regarding the three garage spaces till the final order was made by the Board of Councillors.
I.P. MUKERJI, J.
1. The writ petitioners and the seventh to thirteenth respondents are the flat owners in the building comprising premises no. 1000, Jessore Road, Naskar Bagan, Kolkata - 700 055. It is named Shanti Kunj Apartments. The writ petitioners are jointly the owners of a flat situated on the 4th floor. It measures 1830 sq.ft.
2. An area of 595 sq.ft. on the ground floor is in dispute in this writ. The writ petitioners are the owners of this space. They do not say that this space is meant for car parking. The said respondents in paragraph 4 (b) of their affidavit-in-opposition categorically state that this is the car parking area. It is meant for parking three cars. The total car parking accommodates six cars. The entire car parking space is undemarcated. The complaint of these respondents about the writ petitioners is that the latter have made a permanent illegal construction to enclose this car parking space by brick and cement. Furthermore, it is alleged they have brought in wooden furniture, almirah etc. into the area and erected an iron gate, thereby converting the area into a room. It has said that they have blocked the emergency exit of the building. They are using this car parking space for commercial purposes. In other words they have changed the user of this space, meant for car parking only. The petitioners however say that they have erected a wooden partition wall, installed a wooden almirah, furniture etc. so that this space can be used by the children in the family to study and for the servant to sleep.
3. By a letter dated 12th October, 2015 eight flat owners of the building made a complaint about this to the Chairman of South Dum Dum Municipality. They went to the extent of saying that 40 lives were at stake.
4. On 16th October, 2015 the Municipality, acting on this complaint, issued a stop work notice to the husband of the first petitioner Mr. Deepak Agarwal. It said that there was an allegation against the petitioners by the said respondent, of violation of Rule 3(i) of the West Bengal Municipal (Building) Rules, 2007. Inspection was fixed on 2nd November, 2015 at 2 p.m.
5. The inspection was made on that day. The letter of the Municipality dated 19th November, 2015 said that during this inspection “unauthorised construction” was found to be carried out in violation of Rule 31 (i) of the West Bengal Municipal (Building) Rules 2007. The stop work order made on 16th October, 2015 was reiterated. Deepak Agarwal was summoned to the Municipality to meet the Assistant Engineer PWD with the sanctioned plan and other documents. On 27th October, 2015 and 27the November, 2015, letters were written on behalf of the petitioners by Deepak Agarwal to the South Dum Dum Municipality, stating that no permanent construction was being carried out. No brick or sand was being used, some temporary wooden work was being done in the space. Wooden furniture, fixture had been installed which were not illegal. On 12th January, 2016 Mr. Deepak Agarwal wrote another letter to the Chairman of the Municipality that the developer had confirmed that the writ petitioners had not done any construction work complained of. All the work was done before issuance of the completion certificate. However, the letter dated 2nd December, 2015 of the developer at page 44 of the petition referred to by the writ petitioners only says that the partition wall was constructed by them before the completion certificate.
6. On 20th January, 2016 South Dum Dum Municipality passed the impugned order. It is recorded in the order that the Chairman heard the complainant and Dipak and the first writ petitioner. They admitted before the Chairman that they had built a wooden partition wall, wooden almirah and other wooden furniture and fixture inside the garage without permission. They submitted that this modification to the structure was made to accommodate their children to study there and also to provide accommodation to their servants. By the impugned or
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.