The judgment emphasizes the need for planned development and the importance of obtaining formal permission for construction, highlighting the consequences of unauthorized construction.

JUDGMENT :

Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.

The writ petition has been presented, inter alia, challenging two orders dated 4th May, 2012 and another dated 15th October, 2015 passed by the Special Officer (Building) and Municipal Building Tribunal on B.T. Appeal No.66 of 2012 respectively.

2. Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that the aforesaid two orders passed by the adjudicating authorities at two stages are not tenable since a decree was passed by the civil court on Title Suit No.66 of 1961 dated 1st February, 1961 declaring the order passed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Corporation”) on 6th July, 1960 and which was confirmed vide notice dated 21st September, 1960 deciding demolition of the structure at the suit premises illegal and the corporation was permanently restrained from demolishing the structure at the premises in question.

3. According to the petitioners this decree dated 1st February, 1961 is an important aspect in determining the validity and legality of the aforesaid two orders passed by the adjudicating authorities at two stages since it has been submitted that the alleged construction made by the petitioners should not be treated as new construction rather it is a repairing work of the pillars at the premises in question. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners is the structure was there which was protected by the decree dated 1st February, 1961 only repairing work was carried out for strengthening those pillars which does not require any formal permission from the corporation thereby the orders dated 4th May, 2012 and 15th October, 2015 are required to be declared bad.

4. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that vide order dated 4th May, 2012 the Special Officer (Building) made an attempt to decide the right, title and interest of the parties to this writ petition which is not permissible under the law as a result whereof the decision dated 4th May, 2012 gets vitiated. In addition thereto reliance is placed on Rule 3(2)(i) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 2009 since according to the petitioners the work done by them does not even require permission of repairing since such work fulfils the exception clause as contemplated under Rule 3(2)(i).

5. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the report of the concerned engineer of Corporation dated 12th October, 2011 though was taken into consideration by the adjudicating authorities it appears from the said report that the inspection was carried out by the engineer on 26th September, 2011 but a formal complaint was lodged by the respondents nos. 3 & 4 on 29th September, 2011 which is three days after the inspection made by the engineer. Therefore, on the date of inspection on 26th September, 2011 the issue was not subsisting before the Corporation for preparing the report. Accordingly the said report may not be relied upon while deciding the issue involved in this writ petition.

6. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate representing the Cooperation has made submission to defend the decisions taken by the adjudicating authorities which are under challenge in this writ petition and attention of this Court has been drawn to the relevant part of the order dated 4th May, 2012 wherefrom it appears that prayer was made on behalf of the petitioners for permitting them to retain the unauthorised construction. From other part of the said order dated 4th May, 2012, according to the learned advocate for the Corporation, it transpires that to avoid mishap members of a particular religious community decided to repair to the extent iron frame to replace wooden ballies which was in existence for more than sixty years.

7. It is contended that from such case made out before the Special Officer (Building) on behalf of the petitioners it is apparent that replacement of wooden ballies by iron frames does not come under the purview of Rule 3(2)(i) of the Kolkata Munici