CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA Vs. CHAKOWRI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two petitions in revision by the Corporation of Calcutta against an order of the municipal magistrate, refusing to take action under Section 363 of the Calcutta Municipal Act.

(2.) The facts, briefly are that according to the Calcutta Corporation, third and fourth stories were sanctioned, of an old existing building in 1947. Certain constructions had taken place, and in 1949 the Calcutta Corporation found, on further examination, that the sanction had been obtained by misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in the application, and therefore, the sanction was revoked. The Corporation alleged before the learned magistrate that after the revoked sanction certain works were being done. These are said to have been stayed by the orders of the High Court. Previous to the revocation of the sanction, works in deviation from the sanctioned plan had been done. The learned magistrate came to the conclusion that the revocation was not proper under Rule 65 of sch. XVII of the Calcutta Municipal Act. He did not consider the question of constructions after the revocation or the question of construction in deviation from the sanctioned plan.

(3.) A Division Bench of this Court pointed out in the case of Basantakumar Das v. Corporation of Calcutta,1934 ILR(Cal) 356, that the magistrate has jurisdiction to go into the question whether the revocation was made, or the extent to which the misrepresentation, or fraudulent statement, if any, could have affected the granting of the permission, the magistrate has a discretion under a. 363 in making an order for demolition, and "therefore, to exercise his discretion properly, he should go into the matter. I fully agree with this view of the law as far as it goes.