IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ARIJIT BANERJEE, RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, JJ.
Dev All Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. – Respondents
APO 45 of 2017 With WPO 880 of 2011, APO 46 of 2017, WPO 880 of 2011, APO 47 of 2017, WPO 880 of 2011
Decided on : 12-03-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and initial facts. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. ownership rights over property and unauthorized constructions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. objections to proceedings in writ court versus civil court. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. writ court's ruling on unauthorized construction. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. the importance of consent in property modifications. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. effects of mutation and modifications in property rights. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 7. legal interpretation regarding municipal actions and permissions. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 8. final determination and reaffirmation of previous judgments. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 9. final verdict on the appeals. (Para 27) |
JUDGMENT :
Rai Chattopadhyay, J.
1. The three appeals have arisen assailing a judgment and order of a learned Single Bench, dated December 15, 2016. Those are numbered as APO 45 of 2017, APO 46 of 2017 and APO 47 of 2017, respectively. All the three, as above have been heard analogously. Those are being disposed of by dint of this common judgment.
2. A writ petition being No. W.P.No.880 of 2011, was filed by two petitioners namely, (i) Larica Inn Private Limited (henceforth referred to as “Larica”) and (ii) Kanu Paul Chowdhury. The respondents, excepting the State respondent, were (i) Sweet Hut Super Construction (henceforth referred to as “Construction”), (ii) Mangaldeep Nursing and Diagnosis Private Limited (Henceforth referred to as “Mangaldeep”), (iii) Dev-ALL Private Limited (henceforth referred to as “Dev-All”).
The said writ petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble Single Bench, vide the impugned judgment dated December 15, 2016 – which is under challenge, in these appeals.
“Dev-ALL” is the appellant in APO No.45 of 2017, whereas “Mangaldeep” is the appellant in APO No.46 of 2017 and “Construction” is the appellant in APO NO.47 of 2017.
3. Before attempting to go into the details of the judgment impugned in this writ petition, the factual background of the case may be mentioned in a nutshell for better understanding of the dispute involved in this case.
“Dev-All” had purchased the property situated at the premises No. 41, B. B. Ganguly Street (henceforth referred to as the “said premises”). A joint venture agreement was entered into by “Dev-All” with the developer, that is, “Construction”, for construction of a multi-storeyed building comprising several flats therein. It was agreed that the respective portions of the constructed new buildings would devolve upon the owner “Dev-All” and the developer, in accordance with their respective shareholding, as agreed upon in the said agreement. A building plan was sanctioned by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (respondent Corporation and hence forth referred to as such), on May 18, 2005. Hence, one five storeyed building, comprising the basement and four separate storeys there upon, came into being, the respective portions of which duly devolved upon the owner and the developer, in accordance with their respective shareholding. “Larica” had entered into the scene thereafter, upon purchase of a portion of the said building from “Dev-All”. Three conveyance deeds were executed on July 11, 2009. “Larica” had purchased the following portions of the said property, by dint of the said three registered deeds:
i.) 3954 sq.ft. of super built-up area;
ii.) seven car parking space at the basement comprising an area of 1200 sq.ft.;
iii.) the first floor containing a super built-up area of 2754 sq.ft. together with the proportionate share of land;
iv.) 2700 sq.ft. on the second floor of the premises, including an open space, together with the proportionate share of land;
v.) The third floor of the building comprising of an area of 2700 sq.ft. and 50% of the open roof, containing an area of 4773.5 sq.ft., together with the proportionate share of land.
The developer “Construction”, has been a confirming party in all the said three deeds of conveyance.
4. “Larica” has mutated the said property in its name after duly remitting the property ta
Commissioner of Customs (preventive) vs. Aafloat Textiles India Private Limited & Ors.
Dipak Kumar Mukherjee vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. reported in (2013) 5 SCC 336
Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha
Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2019) 7 SCC 248
Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana vs. Inderjit Singh & Anr.
Manju Bhatia (Mrs.) & Anr. vs. New Dehli Municipal Council & Anr.
Muni Suvrat-Swami Jain S.M.P. Sangh vs. Arun Nathuram Gaikwad
Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph [(1960) 3 SCR 713 : AIR 1960 SC 1156]
Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil
Shyam Sel & Power Ltd. vs. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd.
Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through Legal Representatives & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr.
Supertech Ltd. vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association & Ors.
AI
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....
The court established that renovations deemed necessary for safety do not require additional permissions under the KMC Act, provided they comply with existing regulations.
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....
A writ petition challenging local authority actions is not maintainable when alternative statutory remedies are available, especially if a related appeal is pending.
Point of law: writ petition was not barred by either on the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata. In the peculiar facts of the case since the issues referred to supra namely issue ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Corporation Officers must comply with the principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, treat everyone equally, and not....
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....
Consent of existing flat owners is mandatory for modifications to original building plans under relevant statutes, and failure to secure such consent renders subsequent constructions illegal.
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.