ABDUL SAMAD Vs. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case are briefly these: On the 10 of January 1902 the petitioner obtained from the Corporation of Calcutta a sanction for an additional building in respect of premises Nos. 10 and 11 Damzen's Lane. Thereafter he commenced to make additions to these premises, but, as is admitted, he to a certain extent deviated from the sanctioned plan. The building, with such deviations, was completed in the mon August, 1902. After that date the Municipal assessment of No. 10 Damzen's Lane, which had previously been a bustee, was raised from Rs. 381 to a sum of Rs. 2,700, which was on the petitioner's objection reduced by the Chairman of the Municipality to a sum of Rs. 2,187 : and the assessment of the premises No. 11 was raised from Rs. 1,080 to Rs. 1,564, the assessment having been increased in consequence of the improvements, additions and alterations which were made in respect of the premises.

(2.) Amongst the additions so made was a cooking-shed erected by the petitioner in the year 1903. An application was in that year made by the Chairman of the Corporation for an order for demolition under Section 449 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, and the petitioner was called upon to show cause why the cooking-shed, which was alleged to have been erected without permission, should not be demolished. Subsequently, however, with the consent of the petitioner an order was made under which he was directed to demolish half the length of the cooking-shed, and this order was finally carried out. Nothing was at this time said about the matter now complained of. Some two years after this another application was made by the Chairman of the Corporation, on the 20 February 1905, upon which a notice was issued to the petitioner by the Municipal Magistrate calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the unauthorized construction of the portions of the buildings, Nos. 10 and 11 Damzen's Lane, should not be demolished. The constructions referred to in that notice are the deviations from the original plan sanctioned in 1902, and which were made in that year. Upon this application the Municipal Magistrate made the order, which is now complained of and which is dated the 5 of August 1905, by which he ordered the petitioner to remove the verandahs of both the stories on the south of Damzen's Lane, and to set back his building on the second story beyond 40 feet from the wider street, so as to conform to the sanctioned plan.

(3.) The petitioner thereupon obtained a Rule calling upon the Municipal Magistrate to show cause why the order complained against, dated the 5 August 1905, should not be set aside.