DILIP KUMAR GHOSH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the writ petition the order dtd. 31/1/2014 is under challenge whereby the concerned authority of Bally Municipality passed an order based on the report of Municipal Engineering Directorate in connection with the construction made by private respondent no. 7 at 23/9, Hazra Para Lane, Bally, Howrah.

(2.) Learned advocate representing the petitioners submits that the grievance of the petitioners are two-fold, one is renovation of common passage and construction of drain which impacts the right of other occupants of the adjoining buildings on the said common passage as well as normal flow of sewage through the said drain and the second complaint centers around construction of G+2 storied building by the respondent no. 7 at the aforesaid holding number on obtaining sanctioned plan for constructing G+1 storied building. There are other deviations, according to the petitioners while making construction including converting chhaja (sunshade) at the east side of the 1st floor of the building into verandah. According to the petitioners, deviations made by the respondent no. 7 being person responsible, are required to be demolished since the order of regularization made by the concerned authority of Bally Municipality vide order dtd. 31/1/2014 is without jurisdiction since Bally Municipality has got no statutory authority to regularize deviations on receipt of fees. In support of such contentions made on behalf of the petitioners reliance has been placed on the judgment of a coordinate Bench reported in (2014) 4 Cal LT 1 (HC), ( Ghanashyam Das Vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.) in order to demonstrate before this Court that the concerned authority of the municipality in the context of Sec. 218 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act of 1993') is not authorized to regularize unauthorized construction.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Ayan Banerjee, learned advocate representing Bally Municipality has strenuously argued to defend the decision as contained in the impugned regularization order dtd. 31/1/2014 and it has been submitted that though initially attempt was made by the respondent no. 7 to construct 2nd floor upon constructing RCC columns, but subsequently on the intervention on the municipality the said columns were demolished and at present the building in question is G+1 storied for which sanctioned plan was accorded by the municipality. However, it has been submitted on behalf of the municipality that there are certain minor deviations at different parts of the premises in question out of which the striking one is conversion of chhaja (sunshade) into verandah at the 1st floor of the said premises at the eastern side which is not permissible in terms of the sanctioned plan.