Calcutta High Court: In a writ petition seeking to challenge the sanction of the building plan due the unauthorized and illegal construction, a single-judge bench comprising of Partha Sarathi Chatterjee,* J., held that the building plan was approved in compliance with the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 2009 (Building Rules), and the petitioner had the legal standing to challenge the construction.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, the petitioner filed a complaint against the unauthorized and illegal construction of a building comprising seven blocks located at Picnic Garden Road, Kolkata.
The land on which the building was constructed originally belonged to M/s. Metflow Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Wellmet (Calcutta) Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent 5 and 6) and was developed by respondent nos. 7 to 11. The construction was carried out based on a building plan dated 17-06-2015 sanctioned by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
The petitioner requested KMC to stop further construction, demolish the seven blocks of the building, and cancel a resolution passed by the Mayor-in-Council on 27-07-2018 regarding this project. The petitioner, as a potential purchaser, obtained access to the building plan and relevant documents of the ‘SUGAM HABITAT’ project, which included the building in question.
Moot Point
-
Whether the building plan was sanctioned in violation of the building rules?
-
Whether the petitioner has the locus to file the writ petition?
Petitioner’s Contentions
The petitioner contended that the building plan was sanctioned in violation of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Buildings Rules, 2009 (Building Rules). It was claimed that the maximum permissible height of the building for a plot with a 5.85-meter abutting road should be 15.5 meters, but permission was granted for a height of 25.50 meters. The petitioner also contended that the unauthorized construction should not be allowed to continue, and the resolution of the Mayor-in-Council and the sanctioned building plan should be set aside.
Respondents’ Contentions
The respondents contended that the petitioner, who lives far away from the construction site, had filed numerous similar writ petitions, suggesting ulterior motives. It was contended that the KMC had not violated the building rules in granting permission for construction. The respondents also Contended that the construction had already been completed, and many flats had been sold to intended purchasers.
Court’s Decision
While citing Dipak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkata Municipal Corpn., (2013) 5 SCC 336, Shiromoni Flat Owner Assn. v. Kolkata Municipal Corpn., 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 1356, and other precedents that allowed strangers to challenge illegal and unauthorized constructions, the Court held that the petitioner had the locus to file the writ petition.
The Court examined the relevant Building Rules and found that the building plan was sanctioned in accordance with the rules. The Court noted that the landowners had gifted a strip of land to widen the road, meeting the conditions required for a height of 25.50 meters.
Therefore, the Court found no irregularity or illegality in the process of granting permission for the construction. The writ petition is dismissed without cost.
[Gorachand Mondal v. Kolkata Municipal Corpn., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 3451, order dated 06-10-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Indranath Mitra, Mr. Pingal Bhattacharya, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee, Mr. Subhrangsu Panda, Ms. Manisha Nath, Counsel for the Corporation
Mr. Arindam Banerjee, Ms. Arpita Saha, Ms. Rituparna Chatterjee, Counsel for the Respondent 5 to 11
