The court upheld the validity of the sanctioned building plan and ruled that the writ petitioner had sufficient standing to maintain the petition despite failing to prove unauthorized construction.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Three appeals that have emanated from the same impugned judgment and order dated June 5, 2024, passed in WPA 11359 of 2021 have been heard analogously as they involve similar issues.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Single Judge has held the construction of a commercial-cum-residential complex to be unauthorised and directed demolition thereof.

3. MAT 930 of 2024 has been filed by the developer of the property. Appellant in MAT 1009 of 2024 has claimed itself to be lessor in respect of a portion of the property directed to be demolished. Appellant in MAT 1027 of 2024 has claimed itself to be the welfare association of the owners of the flats of the property concerned.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the developer has contended that, the developer constructed a commercial-cum-residential complex after obtaining requisite sanction to do so from the Minister palette. He has contended that, the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the buildings constructed were unauthorized. According to him, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the plot of land in front of the complex was a part of a highway. He has referred to the provisions of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 particularly to Section 2(c)(iii) thereof.

5. Referring to orders passed in writ petition, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the developer has contended that, unauthorized encroachment in respect of such plot in front of the building concerned were directed to be removed by invoking the provisions of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 in a writ petition filed by 3rd parties. He has contended that, both the State Government as also the municipality accepted the plot in front of the land concerned to be a highway. State government had removed the encroachment from such plot treating it as a highway. Therefore, taking such plot as a part of the highway, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) granted was correct.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the developer has contended that, his client did not deviate from the revised sanction granted in respect of the land concerned. He has pointed out that, after obtaining the sanction, his client applied for and obtained a revised sanction plan. According to him, his client did not make any construction which is beyond the sanctioned FAR. He has pointed out that, though the revised sanction contemplates construction of a basement; his client did not construct the basement. Non-construction of such basement cannot be construed as a deviation.

7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the developer has questioned the locus of the Writ Petitioner to file the Writ Petition. He has contended that, no legal right of the Writ Petitioner was violated by the alleged unauthorized construction or deviation from the sanctioned building plan. In support of such contentions, he has relied upon the judgment and order dated December 21, 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPA 2209 of 2021 (Prasun Sundar Tarafdar Vs. The State of West Bengal and others.), judgment and order dated April 19, 2024, passed by the Division Bench in MAT 1476 of 2022 (M/s. Sonai Food Marketing Private Limited Vs. M/s. Bippatarini Agency & Ors.), 2009 Volume 2 Calcutta High Court Notes 379 (DB) (Calcutta Swimming Club Vs. Lalit Singh & Ors.), 2013 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases 465 (Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others).

8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the developer has also drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated July 11, 2018 passed in WP 7625 (w) of 2018 (Rajesh Kumar Surana vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) and the appeal Courts judgment and order dated August 27, 2018 passed in MAT 721 of 2018 (Ashok Kumar Giri vs. Rajesh Surana & Ors).

9. Relying upon 2006 Volume 8 Supreme Court Cases 590 (Muni Suvrat-Swami Jain S.M.P. Sangh Vs. Arun Nathuram Gaikwad and others) learned Senior Advocate appearing for the developer has contended that, the learned sin