Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Unauthorized Construction and Deviations - Multiple sources confirm that construction beyond sanctioned plans, including additional floors, has been carried out without proper approval. For instance, ["MANAS KUMAR SENGUPTA AND ANR. vs HOWRAH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. - Calcutta"] notes deviations on all floors up to the third floor, with an unauthorized area of 69.69 sq.m. constructed, prompting demolition orders. Similarly, ["Ashoke Kumar Paul vs State of West Bengal - Calcutta"] states that the petitioner constructed a G+4 building without sanctioned plans, despite permission only for G+2.
Sanction and Regularization Attempts - Several documents mention efforts to obtain sanctions post-construction or regularize deviations. ["Subhas Chandra Banerjee VS Howrah Municipal Corporation - Calcutta"] reports that sanctions for additional floors (G+1 and further) were granted later, but unauthorized floors constructed prior to approval remain problematic. ["INDCAL00000046265"] details that some constructions, like the sixth and seventh floors, were sanctioned after construction, but earlier unauthorized floors lacked approval.
Court Orders and Demolition Proceedings - Courts have ordered demolition of unauthorized floors, often restraining or delaying such actions to allow for hearings or structural assessments. ["SHIVSAKTI CONSTRUCTOR vs HOWRAH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS - Calcutta"] indicates that the court permitted demolition of the fourth floor, which was entirely unauthorized, but restrained demolition up to the third floor pending decision. ["Sandip Das vs The Howrah Municipal Corporation - Calcutta"] confirms that demolition orders for unauthorized floors, including additional floors, have been upheld, with courts emphasizing procedural fairness and structural safety.
Legal and Administrative Actions - The authorities have issued notices, initiated demolition proceedings, and lodged complaints against unauthorized constructions. ["MITALI CHONGDAR vs HOWRAH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. - Calcutta"] and ["SOUMITRA MODI AND ANR. vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. - Calcutta"] describe notices and orders for self-demolition or direct demolition due to violations. ["Bijay Kumar Shaw and Ors. vs Howrah Municipal Corporation and Ors. - Calcutta"] reports that courts have directed demolition of unauthorized structures at multiple locations, emphasizing the absence of sanctioned plans.
Specific Judgment on Howrah Case - The overarching trend in the judgments is that unauthorized additional floors in Howrah are subject to demolition orders unless sanctioned or regularized properly. The courts have consistently upheld the authority of municipal bodies to demolish unauthorized constructions, noting that constructions without sanctioned plans are illegal and pose safety concerns ["MANAS KUMAR SENGUPTA AND ANR. vs HOWRAH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. - Calcutta"], ["SHIVSAKTI CONSTRUCTOR vs HOWRAH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS - Calcutta"], ["Sandip Das vs The Howrah Municipal Corporation - Calcutta"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The judicial opinions and municipal records collectively establish that the construction of an additional floor in Howrah without proper sanction is illegal and warrants demolition. Courts have authorized demolition of unauthorized floors, emphasizing procedural fairness, structural safety, and adherence to building regulations. The consistent legal stance is that unauthorized constructions, especially those exceeding sanctioned plans, must be removed to uphold urban planning laws and safety standards ["MANAS KUMAR SENGUPTA AND ANR. vs HOWRAH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. - Calcutta"], ["SHIVSAKTI CONSTRUCTOR vs HOWRAH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS - Calcutta"], ["Sandip Das vs The Howrah Municipal Corporation - Calcutta"].
In the bustling city of Howrah, property owners often face a common dilemma: what happens when you build an extra floor beyond the sanctioned building plan? The question judgment regarding demolition of additional floor in Howrah arises frequently amid rapid urbanization and strict municipal enforcement. Unauthorized constructions, especially additional floors, can lead to demolition orders from the Howrah Municipal Corporation (HMC). But is there room for regularization? This blog dives into pivotal court judgments, statutory provisions, and practical insights to clarify the legal landscape.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on reported judgments and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.
Under the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (as amended), constructions must adhere strictly to sanctioned plans. Building an additional floor without approval—say, beyond a G+1 sanction—constitutes unauthorized construction. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that such deviations are illegal and subject to demolition unless explicitly regularized by law. Laxmi Residency Private Limited VS Rajesh Jain - 2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 616
Key statutes like Sections 28(3)(b), 28(3)(c), and 177(1) of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Amendment Act, 2017, empower HMC to issue demolition orders for violations. In one case, the court dismissed a plea challenging a demolition order, noting blatant violation of rules, regulations and sanctioned plan by appellants in constructing additional floors in their house which otherwise entails imminent danger to building itself and to locality. Prasanta Mondal VS State of West Bengal - 2022 Supreme(Cal) 1392
Courts in Howrah and beyond have established clear principles:
In Ghanashyam Das v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation, the court ruled that orders allowing retention or regularization, even on payment of fees, are null and void in the absence of statutory sanction. Laxmi Residency Private Limited VS Rajesh Jain - 2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 616 Similarly, Muni Suvrat Swami Jain S.M.P. Sangh v. Arun Nathuram Gaikwad clarified that regularization power is not inherent but statutory. Neeraj Kumar Rai VS State of U. P. - 2017 6 Supreme 206
When authorities in Howrah allowed retention of an additional floor after fees, courts struck it down. In the specific Howrah case, construction exceeded the G+1 plan, and post-facto permission was deemed unlawful. Judges stress: no statutory provision justifies retaining illegal additions via fees alone. Laxmi Residency Private Limited VS Rajesh Jain - 2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 616
HMC inspections confirm violations, leading to orders. In a Shibpur, Howrah case at 69 & 71 Kashinath Chatterjee Lane, the court ordered immediate demolition of all unauthorized structures after the club failed to self-demolish and made unfounded historical claims. Police assistance was directed for enforcement. TAPAN KUMAR DEY vs MUNMUN BANERJEE and OTHERS - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 2782
The court noted HMC's report dated 7th February, 2024, detailing unauthorized builds, rejecting affidavits as records sufficed. Ratio: Fabricated claims cannot obstruct demolition. TAPAN KUMAR DEY vs MUNMUN BANERJEE and OTHERS - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 2782
A recurring error: paying charges hoping for legitimacy. Courts hold this a nullity. In Tanmoy Moshat v. The State of West Bengal, acceptance didn't confer legality. Neeraj Kumar Rai VS State of U. P. - 2017 6 Supreme 206 Echoing Ghanashyam Das: fees without law = invalid. Laxmi Residency Private Limited VS Rajesh Jain - 2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 616
Other judgments reinforce HMC's stance:
In Khas Mahal land cases, multi-storey sans permission warranted demolition, deeming sanctions fraudulent. Kunal Hazari VS State Of Bihar - 2007 Supreme(Pat) 1227 Unauthorized occupation on government land yields no rights via damages. AISHA JALAL VS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DELHI - 2003 Supreme(Del) 4
Rare carve-outs exist:- Minor deviations: Possibly regularized if law allows, but additional floors aren't minor. Neeraj Kumar Rai VS State of U. P. - 2017 6 Supreme 206- Explicit statutory provisions: If HMC rules permit fees-based retention for specifics, it applies—but not evident for extra floors. Laxmi Residency Private Limited VS Rajesh Jain - 2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 616- Structural stability: Some boards allow minor retentions post-report, but only for completed builds—and still scrutinized. Prasanta Mondal VS State of West Bengal - 2022 Supreme(Cal) 1392
Divergent views note discretionary powers for trivial changes (Purusottam LaljiTATA HYDRO-ELECTRIC AGENCIES, LIMITED, BOMBAY VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY PRESIDENCY AND ADEN - 1937 0 Supreme(SC) 31), but prevailing: strict enforcement. Priyanka Estates International Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Assam - 2009 8 Supreme 30
Authorities must act within law; illegal regularization invites nullification. Priyanka Estates International Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Assam - 2009 8 Supreme 30
In summary, judgments on demolition of additional floor in Howrah tilt heavily toward enforcement. Unauthorized extra floors face demolition, as regularization sans statute is void. HMC, backed by courts, prioritizes safety and rule of law. Property owners: plan legally from the start.
Key Takeaways:- Stick to sanctioned plans to avoid HMC demolition. Laxmi Residency Private Limited VS Rajesh Jain - 2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 616- Fees ≠ approval; seek statutory routes. Neeraj Kumar Rai VS State of U. P. - 2017 6 Supreme 206- Courts uphold orders for public safety. TAPAN KUMAR DEY vs MUNMUN BANERJEE and OTHERS - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 2782
Stay informed, build compliant—your structure's future depends on it.
#HowrahDemolition #UnauthorizedConstruction #HMCJudgment
Deviation on all floors from ground floor to 3rd floor has been done. Comparative statement regarding sanctioned area and unauthorized areas (floor wise) is appended below. (2) Constructed area of each floor = 74.865 Sq. m. ... Though the report records that there has been no additional floor constructed, upon considering the inspection report it would transpire that the area otherwise permitted to be constructed at the ground floor was 56.828 Sq. m.....
It is submitted that on March 11, 2004 the private respondent has also paid the requisite fees for obtaining sanction plan for and /or retaining such additional floor. ... its power of demolition under Section 177 (1) of the said Act. ... two plans it would reveal that the said Corporation granted sanction plan for G+1 building on 17.10.2002 and for the additional floor over the said G+1 building, further sanction was granted on 13.08.2004. ... Lane, P.S Shibpur, Ward No.26, District Howrah#HL....
Insofar as the fourth floor is concerned, the petitioner cannot resist the demolition thereof. 11. ... Accordingly, the municipal authorities are free to proceed with the demolition of the fourth floor, which is completely unauthorized as liberty has already been granted to the corporation to proceed with the demolition thereof. 12. ... with a further direction that the portions up to the third floor shall not be demolished prior to taking of such decision, I am of the view that there ....
Accordingly, let the self demolition as directed above be conducted upon prior notice to the municipal authorities in presence of a responsible officer of the Howrah Municipal Corporation who should be present to oversee the demolition. ... The petitioner in the first writ petition had previously challenged the order dated 22nd January 2024, whereby the petitioner in the first writ petition was directed to cause self demolition of the unauthorized construction at the first and second floor as per the in....
There is admittedly an order passed by a Single Bench in a writ petition before this court ordering demolition of the said buildings since it is an unauthorized construction. No sanctioned plan has been obtained from the Howrah Municipal Corporation in this regard. ... In the backdrop of the above and given the fact that the demolition of the unauthorized constructions have been ordered way back in April, 2023, and no demolition has taken place till now, this Court directs as follows :- a) Dharmendra Shaw, the developer....
The vigilant respondent immediately issued demolition order, of those two additional floors though at the initial stage, they were directed by the court to take steps regarding demolition, if at all, after affording opportunity of hearing to the appellants. ... In some cases, the Board allowed retention of floor deviations to some extent after perusal of the structural stability report of the buildings and in such cases, the building had already been completed and additional ....
for construction of said two additional floors (sixth and seventh floor). ... The appellants, thereafter, in the year 2016 obtained another sanctioned plan from the Howrah Municipal Corporation for the construction of two additional floors (sixth floor and seventh floor) at the said premises upon payment of Rs.14,99,165/-. ... to them for constructing the said additional two floors smoothly. ... It was no one's case before the learned Single Judge that the constructio....
Later, on 16th June, 2025, an additional clause ‘e’ after clause ‘d’ was added to the said order in the following terms:- “e. Accordingly, the order dated July 24, 2024 passed by the Assistant Engineer, Borough-VII is set aside”. ... According to the petitioners, the municipal authorities did not decide on the objection raised and had mechanically passed the demolition order. 10. Mr. ... The hearing officer must positively ascertain the period when the construction had taken place before taking any further steps for demolition of construc....
. 10, Howrah. ... The petitioner’s contention regarding an alleged violation of the principles of natural justice is wholly without merit. The petitioner was granted an opportunity of hearing but chose not to avail the same. ... The record unequivocally establishes that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the issuance of the demolition order. Despite due receipt of the notice, the petitioner failed to appear or participate in the hearing. ... However, it is an admitted position on record that the petitioner subseque....
The HMC & Ors.) was filed seeking demolition of unauthorized structures situated at 69 & 71, Kashinath Chatterjee Lane, Shibpur, Howrah – 711102. ... The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Howrah Police Commissionerate shall extend all necessary cooperation to the HMC to effect demolition of the unauthorized structures in the aforesaid premises as and when requested by the HMC. 21. ... ), Howrah– 711102, more fully described in, inter alia, their report dated 7th February, 2024. ... Shivam Debnath ….Advoca....
It is urged that thereafter the officer of the respondent Municipal Corporation visited the suit site on 16.04.2016 and 17.04.2016 and observed that the appellant had carried out unauthorized construction up to ground + 7 floors by using RSJ section work and ladi coba and ladi slab. Again the respondent-Municipal Corporation carried out demolition of 7th floor. However, thereafter, the appellant continued the unauthorized construction up to 10th and 11th floors. Hence the demolition of the said construction took place on 21.04.2016 and 26.04.2016.
6) New construction according to report of Nagar Nigam shows the width of house towards south as 15 feet (as against 10 feet purchased through sale deed). 5) After demolition, new construction has been made on the ground floor and the first floor. 7) Total area constructed is 1100 sq. feet while total area purchased was 967.71 sq. feet.
In such case, the building after the fresh work is completed will include partly of the old and partly of the new building. A fresh work may be outside in the exterior or inside in the interior. However, the demolition can be in a portion of the ground floor or in a portion of the first floor. Generally speaking if the roof of the premises is to be demolished and a staircase is to be put up separately retaining the walls then it will amount to demolition. A demolition need not be of the entire ground floor or of the entire first floor.
The builder however proceeded with the building activities contrary to the stay order. Demolition of the fifth floor and of excess construction on each floor was directed by the Authority. The appellants who were residents of the colony, challenged it that the construction damaged the environment, endangered life and safety not only of the occupants but also inhabitants of the locality. On appeal, the appellate authority stayed the demolition subject to the condition that the builder shall stop all further construction.
It is further claimed in para 16 of the writ petition that on inspection of the file of the Estate Officer the application of the petitioner dated 15. 7. 1988, pending the said application, a demolition squad carried out the demolition of the second floor/barsati floor of the property in question and a part of the Ist floor. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of eviction and further demolition was stayed by the learned Additional District Judge.
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
