SANKAR DAS Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Article 227 of the constitution of India is directed against the order dated 25. 01. 2000 passed by the learned Building Tribunal, Calcutta municipal Corporation in Appeal No. 58 of 1991 whereby he has allowed the appeal in part directing demolition of some portion of the premises in appeal at the back side and to retain other unauthorised construction upon payment of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ including all charges.

(2.) THE fact of the case in short is that the applicant purchased an old and dilapidated building at premises no. 22/4b, Iswar ganguly Street within the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. Thereafter he asked for permission to repair the said premises and the municipal authority gave permission to repair the premises only. According to the case of the applicant at the time of making repairing works, some portion of the premises collapsed and as such he had to make constructions. The municipal authority served notice upon him under Section 400 (1) of the Calcutta municipal Corporation Act, 1980 on the ground of infringement of the Building Rules 4, 5, 18, 19, 20, 21, 39 and 41 of schedule xvi. The Officer on Special Duty (B) passed orders of demolition of the building and such orders had been confirmed by the municipal Commissioner. Thereafter the applicant preferred an appeal which was allowed in part upon the terms and conditions as stated earlier by the impugned order. So the applicant has filed the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of india.

(3.) HAVING considered the submissions of the learned Advocates of both the sides and on going through the record, I find that upon receipt of a complaint about unauthorised construction at premises no. 22/4b, Iswar Ganguly Street within the Calcutta Municipal corporation the Building Inspector inspected the said premises and found that the applicant erected a two storied building with r. C. C. slabs and columns by demolishing the existing building and that a new R. C. C. staircase leading from the ground floor up to the second floor had been done without any sanction. Admittedly, the applicant prayed for repair and plastering of his premises in case and that prayer was granted by the municipal authority. But at the time of making construction upon receipt of a complaint the building Inspector inspected the said premises and found that new constructions had been made. Even when the Building Inspector asked the applicant not to make any construction, the applicant did not pay any heed and he continued with the works of making constructions without any sanction. It is not the case of the applicant at all that he had received any sanction for making constructions as noticed by the Building Inspector. On the other hand, his contention is that while he was making repairing works of his premises, the building collapsed and he made new constructions. Such contention has been disbelieved by the officer on Special Duty (B) of the municipal authority stating adequate reasons and such observations had been accepted by the municipal commissioner. Thereafter the applicant preferred an appeal under Section 400 (3) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation act, 1980 against the order of demolition passed by the Municipal commissioner and that appeal was allowed in part by the Municipal building Tribunal with the observations indicated above.