Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Arijit Banerjee, Supratim Bhattacharya, JJ.
Smt. Pritha Nandy – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
MAT 280 of 2024 with CAN 2 of 2024, A.P.O.T. 6 of 2024
Decided On : 10-05-2024
KMC - Property Dispute - Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 - Sections 2(5), 390(1), 411(1) - The court interpreted the provisions of the KMC Act regarding unauthorized construction and renovation, concluding that the actions taken were lawful and did not violate any building rules, thus affirming the lower court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and her sister-in-law are joint owners of a property where tenants allegedly made unauthorized renovations, leading to a dispute. The appellant filed complaints against the tenants for damaging the property, resulting in a writ petition after local authorities failed to act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the renovations were not unauthorized as per the KMC Act, supported by a report from the Director General of Building, which stated that the construction was necessary for safety and did not violate any building rules.
Issues: Whether the renovations made by the tenants violated the KMC Act and whether the appellant was entitled to relief despite pending title suits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the renovations did not constitute unauthorized construction under the KMC Act, and the appellant's claims lacked merit given the ongoing title suits.
Result: The appeal is dismissed, affirming the lower court's order.
JUDGMENT :
Supratim Bhattacharya, J.
The instant appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court dated 30.11.2023 in WPO 1351 of 2023 with WPA 5978 of 2023.
By the impugned order the Learned Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that “…it does not appear that the repairing/ renovation work is in any manner contrary to the provisions of law; neither the same is impermissible in law. The Renovation / repairing work cannot be treated to be unauthorized. …..”
1. Background facts:
ii) As per the version of the appellant, the appellant namely Pritha Nandy and the sister-in-law of the appellant namely Annapurna Nandy who is the Respondent No. 11, are the joint owners of premises No. 99A, Bidhan Sarani Kolkata-700004. Sushanta Sutar who is the Respondent No. 10 was a tenant in respect of one shop room on the ground floor of the said premises. One Jiban Krishna Bhowmick was a tenant in respect of another shop room on the ground floor of the said premises and was carrying on business of readymade garments under the name and style ‘New Sonar Kella’ and on the death of the said Jiban Krishna Bhowmik his legal heirs namely Mrinal Kanti Bhowmick, Malay Kanti Bhowmick, Suman Bhowmick, Mala Saha and Smt. Manju Roy who are the Respondents No. 5 to 9 respectively are running the said business.
iii) A suit for eviction has been filed by the landlords which is still pending.
iv) It has further been stated that after the death of Ashoke Kumar Nandy the husband of the appellant, the Respondents No. 5 to 9 in collusion with the Respondent No. 10 and with the indulgence of the Respondent No. 11 have illegally handed over possession of the shop room belonging to Jiban Krishna Bhowmick to the Respondent No.10. Thereafter the said Respondent No. 10 that is Sushanta Sutar has forcibly demolished the load bearing partition wall in between his shop room and the shop room which was being possessed by the Respondents No. 5 to 9 ignoring the objections raised by the appellants and thereby causing damage to the building. Against such illegal acts of the said Sushanta Sutar that is the Respondent No. 10 the appellant lodged a complaint dated 28.10.2022 before the Municipal Commissioner as well as the police authorities and several requests were made to the said authorities for taking necessary steps against the said Respondent No. 10 but all have been in vain.
v) Thereafter the appellant moved a writ petition against the non- consideration of her complaint by the concerned authorities being WPA No. 5978 of 2023 and the said writ petition has been finally disposed of by the impugned order.
vi) The appellant herein has filed a Suit against the Respondent No. 10 and the Respondent No. 11, being Title Suit No. 464 of 2022 pending before the Ld. 10th Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta praying for a declaration that the Respondent No. 10 has no right to convert the tenanted road side shop room into a big room by demolishing the load bearing partition wall of the adjoining road side shop room.
vii) The appellant has also filed a suit against the Respondent No.11 being Title Suit No. 472 of 2022 which is also pending before the Ld. 10th Bench City Civil Court Calcutta praying for partition of the suit premises being premises No. 99A and 99C Bidhan Sarani, P.S. Shyampukur.
2. Submissions:
We have heard at length Mrs. Kaberi Ghosh (Dey), Ld. Counsel for the appellant, Ms. Tuli Sinha, Ld. Counsel for the State, Mr. Haridas Das, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 6, Mr. Biswajib Ghosh being assisted by Ms. Anuska Pal Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 10 and Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty, Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.11.
The main contentions urged are recorded as under:
i) The entire roof measuring 1200 sq. ft. has been covered by erection of several iron columns length of which are about 15 feet each together with
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 reaffirmed the principle that unauthorized constructions threaten public safety, necessitating swift enforcement of demolition orders under local municipal law.
The judgment emphasizes the need for planned development and the importance of obtaining formal permission for construction, highlighting the consequences of unauthorized construction.
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 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....
Unauthorized construction cannot be legitimized by the passage of time, and demolition orders will be upheld when appropriate legal processes are followed.
The court highlighted the importance of adhering to building permissions and procedures outlined under municipal law in construction matters.
The court established that unauthorized construction without prior permission is subject to lawful demolition, and proper notice procedures must be followed, even if the responsible party is misident....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
