IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Arijit Banerjee, Apurba Sinha Ray, JJ.
Sri Bhola Paik – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
M.A.T. 621 of 2023, I.A. CAN 1 of 2023, M.A.T. 622 of 2023
Decided On : 03-08-2023
INJUNCTION - BUILDING PLAN - KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1980 - SECTIONS 41(1), 42(1), 45, 46 - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - ORDER 39 RULES 1 & 2 - The court held that the order of the Special Municipal Commissioner suspending the relevant sanctioned plan of the appellant being No. 2021120015 is hereby set aside and the original plan is restored.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, who claimed to be the owner of a plot of land at 681, P. Majumdar Road, Kolkata, obtained a building plan sanction from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) and commenced construction. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6, who claimed to be the owners of the adjacent plot of land at 294, P. Majumdar Road, Kolkata, raised an objection before the KMC stating that the appellant started his construction upon their premises. They also filed a Title Suit and obtained an injunction restraining the appellant from disturbing their peaceful possession of the suit property. The Special Municipal Commissioner, after a joint inspection, found that there was no existence of premises No. 681, P. Majumdar Road, Kolkata, and suspended the appellant's building plan till the title of the land in question is decided by a competent court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Special Municipal Commissioner erred in suspending the appellant's building plan without considering the effect of the injunction order passed by the competent Civil Court. The court also held that the appellant should be allowed to complete his construction on the relevant land subject to certain conditions, including that he shall not use the property, create any third party interest in respect of the same, nor transfer the said property in any manner whatsoever without the leave of the competent Civil Court of Law.
Issues: 1. Whether the Special Municipal Commissioner was justified in suspending the appellant's building plan without considering the effect of the injunction order passed by the competent Civil Court? 2. Whether the appellant should be allowed to complete his construction on the relevant land?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the case of Manohar Lal (Dead) By Lrs. (supra) to hold that the effect of the interim injunction order cannot be ignored by the authority. 2. The court also held that the ends of justice shall be best served if the appellant is allowed to complete his construction on the relevant land subject to certain conditions.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Special Municipal Commissioner suspending the appellant's building plan and restored the original plan. The court also set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Learned Single Judge in WPA No. 22925 of 2022 and W.P.A. 15466 of 2022 on 29.03.2023. The two appeals were allowed on contest but without any order as to the costs.
JUDGMENT :
Apurba Sinha Ray, J.
1. These two appeals are directed against a common judgment and order dated March 29, 2023, whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of two writ applications filed by the appellant herein being W.P.A. 22925 of 2022 (Sri Bhola Paik v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) and W.P.A. 15466 of 2022 (Bangiya Sakharata Prasar Samity & Anr. v The State of West Bengal & Ors.). Accordingly the two appeals have been taken up for hearing and disposal together.
2. The appellant claims to have become the owner of a plot of land situated at 681, P. Majumdar Road, Kolkata by virtue of a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 25.07.2018. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in MAT 621 of 2023 are the owners of the adjacent plot of land situated at 294, P. Majumdar Road, Kolkata by virtue of a registered Deed of Indenture executed in the year 1992. Their names had been mutated in the municipal corporation’s records. The appellant had also mutated his name in respect of the premises No. 681, P. Majumdar Road, Kolkata and thereafter made an application before the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for sanction of building plan in his favour and the same was duly approved. Thereafter, the appellant commenced the construction work of a multistoried building at 681, P. Majumdar Road, Kolkata. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 raised an objection before the Corporation stating that the appellant started his construction upon premises no. 294, P. Majumdar Road, Kolkata which belongs to the respondent No. 5, namely, Bangiya Saksharata Prasar Samity, instead of premises No. 681, P. Majumdar Road, Kolkata.
3. Thereafter, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed Title Suit No. 105 of 2022 and the petitioner/appellant also filed a Civil Suit being Title Suit No. 118 of 2022 before the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2nd Court Alipore along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 praying for injunction restraining the defendants/respondents Nos. 5 and 6 herein from disturbing the peaceful possession of the appellant/plaintiff in respect of premises no. 681, P. Majumdar Road, Kolkata. The said application was allowed on contest and the Learned Court found that the defendant had no right to interfere with the construction work of the petitioner/plaintiff which was being carried on at premises no. 681, P. Majumdar Road, Kolkata and was further pleased to direct the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein not to disturb the construction work of the plaintiff over the suit property till the final disposal of the suit.
4. The appellant further states that the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 made a complaint before the Special Municipal Commissioner with a prayer for restraining the petitioner from making any construction upon the premises no. 681, P. Majumdar Road, Kolkata and the said complaint was finally heard on 5th July, 2022 by the Special Municipal Commissioner and after conclusion of the hearing, as the Special Municipal Commissioner failed to identify premises no. 681, P. Majumdar Road, Kolkata he arbitrarily suspended the building plan sanctioned by the building department in respect of premises no. 681, P. Majumdar Road, Kolkata till the title of the land in question is decided by a competent court of law.
5. According to Learned Counsel of the appellant, Mr. Subir Sanyal the special Municipal Commissioner has no right to ignore the order of injunction passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2nd Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, which was also affirmed by the Learned Additional District Judge, 15th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in appellate jurisdiction and as such the said order dated 5th July, 2022 passed by the said Special Municipal Commissioner is illegal and arbitrary. Learned Counsel has also submitted that after the plan was sanctioned the appellant invested a huge sum of money and raised a multistoried building at 681, P. Majumdar Road, Kolkata and if the said sanctioned plan remains suspended till the final disposal of tit
AI
An order passed or action taken by a statutory authority in contravention of an interim order of court is not enforceable.
A decision by an authority impugned in a writ petition cannot be sustained if it fails to follow the directions in an earlier writ petition passed by a competent court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of interim injunction should adhere to the settled principles under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, and the court should not interfer....
In a suit for injunction alleging illegal construction, the Court must consider all relevant evidence, including the building plan sanctioned by the Municipal Authority, and implead the Municipal Aut....
The court emphasized the importance of planned development and the need to address unauthorized constructions. It also highlighted the right of the petitioners, as owners, to be heard before the orde....
Construction without adherence to sanctioned plans violates legal provisions and prior judgments limit contradictory claims in property disputes.
The Special Officer lacked jurisdiction to regularize unauthorized construction under the KMC Act, rendering the action null and emphasizing the fundamental nature of jurisdiction in legal proceeding....
The court affirmed the principle that statutory authorities must obtain the consent of all property owners before sanctioning additional construction, particularly when ownership rights are contested....
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.