W.P. No. 15546(W) of 2014. Case: Rajesh Verma Vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation. High Court of Calcutta (India)
| Case Number | W.P. No. 15546(W) of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Raghunath Chakraborty, Adv. and For Respondents: Alok Kumar Ghosh, Sima Chakraborty and Gopal Chandra Das, Advs. |
| Judges | Soumitra Pal, J. |
| Issue | Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, (west Bengal) - Sections 2(5), 390, 92, 393, 400, 400(1), 413A, 610, 619A; Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Section 351(2) |
| Citation | 2014 (4) CHN 409 (CAL) |
| Judgement Date | June 12, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Calcutta (India) |
Judgment:
Soumitra Pal, J.
-
In the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8th April, 2014 passed by the Municipal Building Tribunal, Kolkata Municipal Corporation upholding the order dated 21st June, 2010 passed by the Special Officer (Building) in Demolition Case No. 01-D/2010-11, Borough.-VI directing demolition of the premises. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the petitioner, assailing the order passed by the Special Officer (Building) and the Tribunal submits that as the notice dated 22nd April, 2010 issued by the municipal authorities regarding the extent of unauthorised construction is vague and as copies of the documents were not furnished and there was no policy as recorded in the order dated 21st June, 2010 passed by the Special Officer (Building) and as constructions of similar nature have been directed to be regularised on payment of fees and fine, appropriate order may be passed setting aside the orders under challenge and for de novo consideration of the matter. In this regard reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in Muni Suvrat Swami Jain S.M.P. Sangh vs. Arun Nathurum Gaikwad and others AIR 2007 SC 38. Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana vs. Inderjit Singh and another: (2008) 13 SCC 506 and on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Laddu Gopal Bajoria vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation 2006 (4) CHN 136 in support of his submission.
-
Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation submits as it is evident from the writ petition that the petitioner had carried out unauthorised construction by adding two floors without having sanction under section 392 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 ('1980 Act' for short) and had understood the notice dated 22nd April, 2010 and has prayed for regularisation of the unauthorised construction which is not permissible under the Act, orders passed by the authorities are just and proper.
-
Heard learned advocates for the parties. Perusing the writ petition I find that though the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Special Officer (Building) and by the Municipal Building Tribunal, however, by letter dated 17th October, 2012 he has prayed for regularisation of the said construction. Question also remains whether the construction in question is minor in nature or there has been minor deviation as stated in the petition. Looking at the definition of "building" under section 2(5) of the 1980 Act, I find...
To continue reading
Request your trial