SANDHYA BHAR Vs. CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Article 227 of the constitution of India is directed against the order dated 31st july, 2000 passed by the Building Tribunal, Kolkata Municipal corporation in B. T. Appeal No. 151 of 1987-88 directing the demolition of certain structures with brick walls.

(2.) THE fact of the case in short is that the applicant obtained one B. S. Plan dated 11. 04. 1983 in respect of his premises no. 10, blackquare Square, Calcutta ? 700 006 within the jurisdiction of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. She started the construction in the month of June, 1983. But, while she was making the construction she made unauthorised constructions in many ways violating the provisions of Rules 18, 20, 39, 40, 5, 19, 8 and 21 of the schedule XVI of the Building Rules and under Section 365 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The Special Officer (Building) after holding hearing directed demolition of the unauthorised constructions. Thereafter the applicant preferred an appeal which was allowed in part asking the applicant to retain certain portion of the unauthorised construction upon payment of costs of Rs. 40,000/- and to demolish the rest portion. Being aggrieved by the said order, this application has been preferred by the applicant.

(3.) ON hearing submission of the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the respondent no. 1 sanctioned the B. S. Plan No. 2 dated 11. 04. 1983 in respect of the premises of the applicant and she started construction in the month of June, 1983, that is, after about three months from the date of sanction of the plan. The applicant was therefore very much aware of the sanctioned plan on the basis of which she was to make construction on a small piece of land measuring about 1? cuttahs. But with utter surprise, I find that that the applicant had made constructions in gross violation of the Rules 18, 20, 39, 40, 5, 19, 8 and 21 of Schedule XVI of the building Rules and Section 365 of the said Act. While she was making construction, objection was raised but the applicant did not pay any heed to such objection and she continued to make construction according to her own peril.