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) 2899

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Gaurang Kanth, J
Naba Kumar Sadhukhan & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
The Howrah Municipal Corporation & Ors. – Respondent
W. P. A. 3592 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Arun Kumar Mohanty, Mr. Manabendranath Bandyopadhyay, Ms. Snigdha Ghosh, Ms. Puspita Chowdhury, Ms. Rajorna Mazumder
For the Respondents: Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Mr. Akashdeep Mukherjee, Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee, Mr. Sandipan Banerjee, Mr. Ankit Sureka, Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Mr. Sounak Mondal, Mr. Malay Krishna Dey, Mr. Tapas Ballav Mandal

The court mandates timely action by a municipal corporation in response to complaints regarding unauthorized construction.

Headnote:In this judgment, the Court addressed the failure of the Howrah Municipal Corporation to take action against unauthorized construction. The petitioners argued that the sanctioned building plan was obtained through misrepresentation and was in violation of building regulations. The Court found it necessary to direct the Corporation to decide the petitioners' representation in a timely manner. The primary legal questions included whether the building plan was obtained legally. The Court emphasized the necessity for compliance with building regulations and upheld the petitioners' right to have their representation heard. Finally, the petition was disposed of with directions for a reasoned order within eight weeks.

Table of Content
1. petitioners raise concerns over unauthorized construction. (Para 1 , 2)
2. respondents offer to address petitioners' representation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court mandates a decision on representation with hearings. (Para 6)

1. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition,being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent- Howrah Municipal Corporation in failing or refusing to take appropriate action against the illegal and unauthorized construction carried out at premises Nos. 252/5 and 252/4, Panchanantala Road, P.S. & Dist. Howrah, respectively falling under Ward No.17 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation. They are also challenging the sanctioned building plan of the private respondents stating that the same has been obtained by misrepresentation, upon amalgamating the two plots which according to them, is legally not permissible.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the private respondents had constructed a G+3 storied building as a single unit namely, ‘Monimala Apartment’ over the said two plots without effecting any formal amalgamation of the plots. The petitioners further contend that the private respondents had obtained the sanctioned building plan from the Howrah Municipal Corporation in blatant violation of the mandatory requirement of leaving open spaces as per applicable building regulations. Despite the petitioners having lodged multiple complaints, the respondent-Howrah Municipal Corporation has failed to act upon the same.

3. Learned Advocate for the respondent-Howrah Municipal Corporation submits that the authoritiesare ready and willing to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners dated

24.01.2024.

4. In view of the submission made by the learned Advocate for the respondent-Howrah Municipal Corporation, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners will be satisfied if the respondent-Corporationdecides their representation dated 24.01.2024 in a time bound manner.

5. Learned Advocate for the private respondents submits that their clients shall be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing at the time of deciding the representation of the petitioners so that they can produce their relevant sanctioned building plan, according to which, they claim to have constructed the property and have not deviated or carried out any unauthorized construction.

6. Accordingly, this Court directs the Assistant Engineer, (Building Department), Howrah Municipal Corporation (respondent no.6) to decide the representation of the petitionersdated 24.01.2024 and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners as well as the private respondents.

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