IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Dipes Banerjee – Appellant
Versus
Anil Sureka – Respondent
Judgment :
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
1. Three appeals are taken up for analogous hearing as they relate to the same immovable property, namely, Premises No.6A, Jorabagan Street, Kolkata-700006. All the three appeals are specially assigned to this Bench.
2. Of the three appeals, one is in the Original Side. In the Original Side, APO 100 of 2024 is at the behest of the owner of the premises concerned and directed against an order dated May 7, 2024 passed in WPO 393 of 2024. By the impugned order dated May 7, 2024, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant.
3. FMA 618 of 2025 is at the behest of the owner of the property and directed against orders dated March 10, 2025 and March 11, 2025 passed in WPA 5700 of 2025. MAT 771 of 2025 is again at the behest of the owner and directed against an order dated May 14, 2025 passed in WPA 5700 of 2025. By the three impugned orders involved in these two appeals learned Single Judge granted interim protection to the private respondent in respect of a subsisting order of demolition passed under Section 400(8) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.
4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, in 2015, th
The court reaffirmed the principle that unauthorized constructions threaten public safety, necessitating swift enforcement of demolition orders under local municipal law.
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 affirmed that opportunities in legal proceedings must be utilized effectively, and failure to substantiate property claims does not invalidate administrative actions under Article 226.
Section 406 of Kerala Municipality Act reads as Demolition or alteration of building work unlawfully commenced, carried on or completed.
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....
The Superintendent Engineer validly issued a demolition order under delegated authority, despite challenges regarding notice and natural justice, affirming the necessity of judicial efficiency in mun....
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 highlighted the importance of adhering to building permissions and procedures outlined under municipal law in construction matters.
The court ruled that demolition orders must follow due process and should only be executed if significant public interest is at stake, emphasizing the right to appeal.
A decision by an authority impugned in a writ petition cannot be sustained if it fails to follow the directions in an earlier writ petition passed by a competent court.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.