Back
DEBANGSU BASAK, MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Bangbhumi Realbuilders LLP – Appellant
Versus
Biplab Das – Respondent
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 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.
The court affirmed that any citizen can file complaints regarding unauthorized constructions, emphasizing strict enforcement of planning laws to prevent illegal activities.
A party must demonstrate a legal right or interest to maintain a writ petition; mere annoyance is insufficient for locus standi.
Construction without valid municipal sanction is illegal, and reliance on oral assurances does not legitimize unauthorized actions, emphasizing the necessity of strict adherence to statutory requirem....
The availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 194(12) of the Act of 2009 and the requirement to establish locus standi for filing a writ petition.
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....
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
