Back
DEBANGSU BASAK, MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Dilip Ray – Appellant
Versus
Howrah Municipal Corporation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. unauthorized construction complaint (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. building rules reference (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. undisputed facts established (Para 14 , 16) |
| 4. writ petition filed (Para 15) |
| 5. representation pending (Para 17) |
| 6. municipal body authority (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. order set aside (Para 21) |
| 8. hearing directive (Para 22) |
| 9. disposal of application (Para 23) |
JUDGMENT :
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
1. Appeal is at the behest of the writ petitioner and directed against an order dated January 25, 2024 passed in W.P.A. 14410 of 2018.
2. By the impugned the order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the appellant complained to the Howrah Municipal Corporation of unauthorized construction. He submits that, initially a sanction for G+3 was granted by the Howrah Municipal Corporation. The private respondent constructed beyond the sanction granted. In fact, it was in deviation of the sanction granted. Thereafter, the private respondent applied for sanction of “as made” building plan. He submits that, the Howrah Municipal Corporation granted sanction thereof illegally and wrongfully. The
Unauthorized construction cannot be legitimized through retention fees if it was not initially permitted by municipal regulations.
Unauthorized construction cannot be regularized as a minor deviation under the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, and must be demolished if not sanctioned.
The court mandates timely action by a municipal corporation in response to complaints regarding unauthorized construction.
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 court upheld the municipality's authority to regularize a revised building plan for a fourth floor, concluding the petitioner's challenge was unmaintainable due to lack of contest against the rev....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the concerned authority of Bally Municipality is not empowered to regularize deviations made dehors the sanctioned plan under Section 218 of t....
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
