Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Sudipta Gupta & Ors vs Kamarhati Municipality & Ors on 20 September, 2024
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
Sl. No. 3
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi
And
The Hon'ble Justice Gaurang Kanth
FMA 143 of 2024
with
CAN 1 of 2024
Sri Sudipta Gupta & Ors.
-Vs-
Kamarhati Municipality & Ors.
For the Appellants : Mr. Pijush Chaturvedi
Mr. Tapan Kumar Rakshit
Mr. Surajit Roy
For the State : Ms. Jayeeta Sinha
Mr. Sandip Mandal
For the respondent Nos. 1-4 : Mr. Sankha Subhra Ray
For the respondent No. 7 : Mr. Gopal Chandra Das
Mr. Abhishek Sikdar
Ms. Ananya Das
Ms. Sahili Dey
Heard on : 20.09.2024
Judgment on : 20.09.2024
Joymalya Bagchi, J.:-
1. Learned Counsel for the appellants submit a note-sheet dated
19.01.2021 shows the construction was upto plinth level but note-sheet
dated 29.11.2020 records construction has been made upto third floor.
This dichotomy demonstrates the Notings are false and the sanction is
fabricated and an ante-dated document.
2. Learned Counsel for the Municipality submits this anomaly was
clarified before the Hon'ble Single Judge on the earlier order dated
01.03.2001 relying on the erroneous note-sheet dated 19.01.2001 was
recalled. Thereafter, by order dated 01.04.2022 Hon'ble Single Judge
directed the Municipality to hold fresh inspection of the premises and
upon hearing pass a reasoned order to the unauthorised construction.
Chairman of the Municipality came to a finding that the deviations were
minor and may be condoned. This has been challenged in the present
writ petition. During hearing inspection report was placed before the
Hon'ble Single Judge. In view of the report which showed minor
deviation, the writ petition was dismissed.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellants contends the Hon'ble Single
Judge failed to consider that the construction was made earlier and
thereafter an ante-dated sanction plan was procured. In support of his
contention he relies on Government Notification dated 19.05.2020
whereby the Board of Councillors of the Municipality was superseded on
and from that date and Board of Administrators was appointed in its
place and stead. It is also submitted the provisional sanction was
granted in favour of a dead person.
4. We have considered the sanction plan. Sanction had been prayed
for a four storied building and the provisional sanction upto plinth level
was granted on 19.05.2020 and thereafter on inspections by the engineer
concerned provisional sanction was extended upto ground level on
12.08.2020, first floor on 25.09.20202, second floor on 15.10.2020 and
the top floor on 29.12.2020 respectively.
5. From the endorsements on the sanction plan it is evident that the
provisional sanction had been granted by the Board of Councillors on
19.05.2020 prior to its supersession and thereafter the said sanction was
extended for the remaining building from time to time on the strength of
the reports of the engineer concerned. After the supersession of the
Board, extension of provisional sanction for the remaining building on
various dates were approved by the Board of Administrators who were in
charge of the affairs of the Municipality.
6. In such view of the matter it cannot be said that the building in
question was erected without a sanction plan and as per the inspection
report placed before the Hon'ble Single Judge it appears that is a minor
deviation of .38% from the sanction plan due to extension of cantilever of
the balconies.
7. Under such circumstances, the Hon'ble Single Judge rightly did
not direct demolition of the building.
8. With regard to the issue that the sanction was granted in favour
of a dead person i.e. Kamala Mondal who expired on 19.07.2020, we note
provisional sanction had been granted on 19.05.2020 upto plinth level at
a time when the applicant was alive and construction had commenced as
per sanction plan. Thereafter the provisional sanction had been extended
in respect of the remaining building from time to time as per the said
sanction plan on the basis of report of the engineer concerned.
9. Accordingly, we are of the opinion there is no scope to interfere
with the order impugned.
10. Appeal is dismissed.
11. In view of dismissal of the appeal connected application being
CAN 1 of 2024 is also dismissed.
12. There will be no order as to costs.
I agree.
(Gaurang Kanth, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
Sdas
