Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shanti Devi Singh & Ors vs The Municipal Commissioner on 8 August, 2023
1.
08-08-2023
debajyoti
(Ct. no.06)
MAT 1465 of 2023
+
IA NO:CAN/1/2023
Shanti Devi Singh & Ors.
Vs.
The Municipal Commissioner, The Kolkata
Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee,
Mr. Suryaneel Das,
Mr. Chiranjit Pal,
Mr. Sagnik Banerjee
... For the Appellants.
Mr. Srijan Nayek,
Mr. Dwijadas Chakraborty
... For K.M.C.
Defect, as noted by the Additional Stamp
Reporter on August 03, 2023, be cured forthwith.
By consent of the parties, the appeal and the
connected application are taken up together for
hearing.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and
order dated July 04, 2023, whereby the writ petition
of the respondent no.6 herein, being WPA 7911 of
2023, was disposed of.
The present appellants were respondent nos.8 to
11 (private respondents) in the writ petition.
The writ petitioner approached the learned
Single Judge alleging illegal and unauthorized
construction at Premises No.B/136/H/22,
Narkeldanga Main Road, Kolkata, at the instance of
the private respondents in the writ petition. The writ
petitioner further complained that Kolkata Municipal
Corporation was not taking any steps on the basis of
the complaint lodged by him.
Before the learned Single Judge, it was
submitted on behalf of the Corporation that on
detection of unauthorized construction at the
concerned premises, steps have been taken to initiate
proceedings under the provisions of Section 400 of the
Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and steps
have already been taken for demolition of the
unauthorized construction. It was further submitted
that a substantial portion of the unauthorized
structure had already been demolished.
The learned Judge observed that from the report
of the Corporation that was filed before Her Ladyship,
it was not clear as to whether the entire unauthorized
construction has been demolished or not.
Accordingly, the learned Judge disposed of the writ
petition by directing the Executive Engineer of the
concerned Borough to take steps for demolition of the
entire unauthorized structure at the earliest, if not
demolished in the meantime.
Being aggrieved, the private respondents in the
writ petition have come by way of this appeal.
The primary grievance of the appellants is that
notice of the proceedings before the learned Single
Judge was not served on them. Learned advocate
says that the addresses of the private respondents, as
mentioned in the cause-title of the writ petition,
correspond to the address of the premises where the
alleged unauthorized construction was being raised.
It was a building under construction and nobody
could reside in that building. Hence, wrong addresses
of the private respondents have been mentioned in the
cause-title of the writ petition.
Mr. Nayek, learned advocate for the Corporation,
points out that the address of the premises where
unauthorized construction was being made is
different from the addresses of the private
respondents mentioned in the cause-title of the writ
petition. In any event, he says that the demolition
work is almost complete and is likely to be completed
by the end of the day, as per his instruction.
Learned advocate for the appellants says that
the appellants should be given at least a hearing
before the demolition is completed. Although there is
no sanctioned building plan, the appellants intend to
apply for regularization of the unauthorized
structures.
We have considered the rival contentions of the
parties. It is not in dispute that the impugned
construction was raised by the appellants without
there being any sanctioned building plan. It is our
considered view that citizens, who take law into their
own hands and make constructions without obtaining
prior sanction from the competent authority, deserve
no sympathy of the Court. The law generally does not
contemplate making of construction without prior
permission and then applying for legalizing the same.
People, who indulge in illegal construction without
obtaining prior permission from the appropriate
authority, are reckless and deserve no leniency.
In view of the aforesaid, we see no infirmity in
the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal and
the connected application are, accordingly, dismissed.
There will, however, be no order as to costs.
All parties shall act on the server copies of this
order duly downloaded from the official website of
this Court.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if
applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance
of all necessary formalities.
(Arijit Banerjee, J.)
(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)
