IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.
Gopal Gobinda Ghosh - Petitioner
Versus
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. - Respondents
WPO No. 738 of 2017
Decided On : 07-03-2024
Demolition - Unauthorised Construction - Building Rules 2009, Section 544 and 546 of the Act - [Rules 62, 70, 133, 134, Section 544, 546] - The court scrutinized the impugned order directing demolition of unauthorised structures and retention of a kitchen structure. The court found the order to be arbitrary and unreasoned, and in contravention of statutory provisions. The court set aside the order and directed immediate execution of the demolition proceeding for the unauthorised construction.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner sought a decision on the justification of not directing the demolition of an unauthorised kitchen structure, despite it being found unauthorised and illegal. The respondent Corporation had allowed retention of the structure against the payment of 'demand fees' and filing of an affidavit. The petitioner alleged unauthorised construction and collusion with the Corporation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the impugned order to be arbitrary and unreasoned, and in contravention of statutory provisions. It set aside the order and directed immediate execution of the demolition proceeding for the unauthorised construction.
Issues: The issues included the justification for not directing demolition of the unauthorised kitchen structure, the arbitrary and unreasoned nature of the impugned order, and the legality of the Corporation's decision to allow retention of the unauthorised construction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order was arbitrary and unreasoned, and in contravention of statutory provisions. It also found the imposition of conditions beyond the statutory framework, and the action of the Corporation to be in hostility of the purpose of the 'debottor' property.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The respondent Corporation was directed to immediately execute the demolition proceeding for the unauthorised construction.
JUDGMENT :
Rai Chattopadhyay, J.
1. The moot question determinable in this writ petition is as to whether the OSD (Building)/South, of the respondent, was justified in not directing for demolition of the existing structure of kitchen (asbestos shaded structure) at the western side ground floor of the building, in lieu of deposit of the ‘demand fees’, in spite of coming to a finding that the said structure was unauthorised and illegal, being beyond the purview of the sanctioned building plan. The writ petitioner is the son of the donor of ‘Debottor property’, that is the land and structure over there. According to the writ petitioner at present, the respondent no. 5 and 6 are in possession of the concerned property, unauthorisedly, by exercise of undue coercion and force.
2. The writ petitioner alleges of construction being made unauthorisedly and illegally by the said private respondent over the concerned property and that in collusion with and support of the respondent Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
3. This Court had earlier directed the Corporation vide order dated 11.02.2016, in C.O No. 4382 of 2015, to conclude the proceeding of demolition at the concerned premises. With respect to the said demolition procedure the authority as mentioned above held a hearing of the parties on 21.02.2017. The order of the said hearing procedure dated 22.02.2017, is challenged in the present writ petition.
4. Let the finding of the concerned authority in the impugned order dated 22.02.2017 be scrutinised at first.
5. The details of the unauthorised construction has been mentioned therein, in the following manner :-
6. The authority has noted that according to the report of the concerned Borough, infringement of the Building Rules, 2009, would be evident, i.e., of Rules 62, 70, 133 and 134. Borough has also mentioned in the report a previous order dated 11.12.2013, by dint of which the Person Responsible has been directed to demolish the impugned unauthorised construction as per the précis and the demolition sketch plan. That, in default the Corporation would be at liberty to demolish the same.
7. The Corporation serves notice, under Section 544 and 546 of the Act regarding unauthorised building and informing the date of demolition of the asbestos roof structures at ground floor and second floor of the said premise, on 17.12.2013. The process, however, has been abandoned, in the midst of it.
8. The authority recorded its observations as follows, in the said impugned order :-
Going though the statement of P.R. I am inclined to pass demolition order for the structure marked in D. Sketch in respect of the impugned unauthorised construction. The structure shaded by Poly Sheet at roof and Asbestos Structures at mandatory open spaces may lead fire hazard. The structure should be removed immediately to avoid any accident/hazard.”
9. The operative part of the impugned order dated 22.02.2017 is as follows:-
The P.R are directed to demolish the unauthorised structure of Asbestos shaded structure at (Northern Side) rear open space, Southern Side Asbestos Shade
Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors.
The impugned order was found to be arbitrary and unreasoned, and in contravention of statutory provisions, leading to its setting aside by the court.
The duty of the municipal authority to ensure prompt demolition of unauthorized constructions and the precedence of the order of a higher court over that of a subordinate court.
A structure without a sanctioned plan is unauthorized, irrespective of its age; such constructions cannot gain legality from their longevity.
Unauthorized constructions cannot be legitimized by time or inaction; strict enforcement of demolition orders is essential to uphold the rule of law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to building rules and not permitting unauthorized construction to remain. The court emphasized the need to implement val....
The Superintendent Engineer validly issued a demolition order under delegated authority, despite challenges regarding notice and natural justice, affirming the necessity of judicial efficiency in mun....
The judgment establishes the principle that unauthorised constructions cannot be regularized under the amended provisions of the Acts. It emphasizes the need to prevent illegal and unauthorized const....
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.