SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 1969

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Saugata Bhattacharyya, J
Smt. Soma Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
Jalpaiguri Municipality – Respondent
W.P.A. 1550 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Kunaljit Bhattacharjee, Mr. Alok Sah
For the Respondents: Mr. Tarunjyoti Tiwari, Ms. Sutapa Sen Paul, Sk. Abdul Rahim, Mr. Pretom Das, Mr. Abhishek Sen

Statutory provisions of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 prevail over conflicting permissions from administrative schemes regarding construction.

Headnote:The West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 governs the need for sanctioned plans in construction projects. The petitioner, as a co-sharer, claims unauthorized construction by the private respondents without proper sanction. The Court found prima facie merit in allegations based on an administrative memo directing a halt to construction. The Court established that if permissions granted under a scheme conflict with statutory provisions, the statutory law prevails (paragraphs 5 and 6). The Municipality was ordered to complete proceedings under the Act within ten weeks. Writ petition stands disposed of.

Table of Content
1. petitioner alleges unauthorized construction by co-sharers. (Para 1 , 2)
2. foundations of the complaint supported by municipal memo. (Para 3 , 5)
3. defense cites compatibility of construction with local scheme. (Para 4)
4. municipality directed to investigate and conclude proceedings. (Para 6 , 8)
5. writ petition ended with court's ruling. (Para 9)

1) Matter is heard in terms of order dated 23rd July, 2025 when learned advocate representing Jalpaiguri Municipality has submitted a memo dated 27th November, 2024 addressed to one Satyajit Ghosh being respondent no.4 whereby said respondent no. 4 is directed to stop construction and issue is decided to be considered by the concerned authority of Jalpaiguri Municipality.

2) A case is made out by the petitioner being one of the co-sharers who has alleged that respondent nos. 4 and 5 being other co-sharers of the premises in question have started unauthorized construction without sanctioned plan by the concerned authority of the Jalpaiguri Municipality.

3) Such contention made on behalf of the petitioner prima facie stands fortified from the memo dated 27th November, 2024 issued on behalf of Jalpaiguri Municipality addressed to respondent no. 4 whereby respondent no. 4 was directed not to carry on further construction.

4) Mr. Tewari, learned advocate representing respondent nos. 4 and 5 has made submission that in terms of particular scheme namely ‘Housing For All’ plan has been sanctioned by the appropriate authority in favour of private respondents which permitted the private respondents to make construction.

5) On perusal of the memo dated 27th November, 2024, it appears prima facie that there is no sanctioned plan accorded by the concerned authority of the Jalpaiguri Municipality. If under the scheme that is ‘Housing For All’ any permission is accorded by the competent authority under said scheme and that is repugnant to the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Municipal Act , 1993, it is trite law that the statutory provisions will prevail over the scheme.

6) Since on inspection it is found as it is submitted on behalf of Jalpaiguri Municipality that there is no sanctioned plan in support of alleged construction made by the private respondents, concerned authority of Jalpaiguri Municipality is directed to initiate proceeding under section 218 of the West Bengal Municipal Act , 1993 and bring the same into logical conclusion.

7) Concerned authority of the Municipality is also empowered under Section 220 of said Act of 1993 to pass appropriate order.

8) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the concerned authority of Jalpaiguri Municipality within a period of ten weeks from date. Decision to be taken by the concerned authority of Jalpaiguri Municipality shall be communicated to the parties by fortnight thereafter.

9) Writ petition stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top