Disposed¶25

Debasis Bandyopadhyay & Anr. v. the Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Calcutta HC9 Dec 2024WPA/17712/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPA 17712 of 2018; Debasis Bandyopadhyay & Anr. v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation; Aura by the Lake, 58/1 Suren Sarkar Road, Kolkata; cancellation of revised sanction plan dated 29.01.2016; demolition of terrace-V/roof-garden wall; B.P. No. 2011030079 dated 30/03/2012; Special Officer (Building) demolition case 03D/III/2015-2016 dated 29/08/2015 approved by Mayor; completion certificate Rule 28 KMC Building Rule 2009 no. B/12/III/2015-16 dated 02.02.2016; Section 400(3) KMC Act; appeal to Municipal Building Tribunal under Section 415; writ not maintainable; disposed; interim order vacated; decided 09.12.2024 by Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ was disposed of as not maintainable, all connected applications disposed of, and the interim order, if any, vacated. ¶25

Debasis Bandyopadhyay & Anr. Vs the Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ was disposed of as not maintainable, all connected applications disposed of, and the interim order, if any, vacated.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the present writ petition is maintainable, given that against the completion certificate dated 02.02.2016 an appeal lies before the Municipal Building Tribunal under Section 400(3) of the KMC Act. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The present writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly stands disposed of.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner, if aggrieved, has to approach the concerned authority with a fresh prayer, which the authority may consider in accordance with law.

¶19

Key takeaways

Against the order issuing the completion certificate on 02.02.2016, an appeal lies before the Tribunal as per Section 400(3) of the KMC Act.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition WPA 17712 of 2018 (Calcutta High Court, decided 09.12.2024, Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.): petitioner Debasis Bandyopadhyay (in person) & Anr., who purchased a flat in the property on 14 July 2017, sought direction upon respondent no. 1 to cancel the revised sanction plan dated 29.01.2016 and to direct the private respondents to demolish the brick-built wall at the South-East corner of open terrace-V/roof garden of the building 'Aura by the Lake', 58/1 Suren Sarkar Road, Kolkata. Per the KMC status report (furnished pursuant to High Court order dated 11/11/2024): the partly G+IV/partly G+V residential building was sanctioned vide B.P. No. 2011030079 dated 30/03/2012; a demolition case order was passed by the Special Officer (Building), D/case no. 03D/III/2015-2016 dated 29/08/2015, approved by the Hon'ble Mayor; and a completion certificate was issued under Rule 28 of the KMC Building Rule, 2009 vide no. B/12/III/2015-16 dated 02.02.2016. Holding: as the petitioner entered the premises only in 2017 and, against the order issuing the completion certificate on 02.02.2016, an appeal lies before the Municipal Building Tribunal appointed under Section 415 as per Section 400(3) of the KMC Act, the writ petition is not maintainable; the petitioner, if aggrieved, must approach the concerned authority with a fresh prayer to be considered in accordance with law. Disposition: writ disposed of; all connected applications disposed of; interim order, if any, vacated.

¶1

09.12.2024 Item No.33 Ct. No. 30 Aloke

¶2

WPA 17712 of 2018

¶3

Debasis Bandyopadhyay & Anr. Vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Debasis Bandyopadhyay … petitioner-in-person

¶5

Ms. Arpita Shah Ms. Rituparna Chatterjee Mr. Dhruva Bahety … for the respondent no. 5

¶6

Mr. Alok Kr. Ghosh Mr. Dipankar Ghosh … for the KMC

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred praying for direction upon the respondent no. 1 and his men and agent to cancel the revised sanction plan dated 29.01.2016 and direct the private respondents to demolish the brick built wall constructed at the SouthEast corner of the open terrace-V/roof garden of the building, being Aura by the Lake at premises no. 58/1, Suren Sarkar Road, Kolkata-700 010.

¶8

Admittedly, the petitioner purchased a flat in the property in this case on 14th July, 2017.

¶9

Mr. Alok Ghosh, learned senior counsel appearing for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation has submitted a status report which is reproduced herein for convenience :-

¶10

“Pursuant to the order of Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta dated 11/11/2024 in respect to WPA 17712 of 2018 (Debasish

¶11

¶12

Bandyopadhyay & Anr. Vs. KMC & Ors.) a status report furnished below – This is a partly G+IV and partly G+V storied residential building at the captioned premises sanctioned vide B.P. No. 2011030079 dated 30/03/2012. A demolition case proceeding was initiated against the person responsible Ravi Churiwal, an order passed by the Special Officer (Building) Vide D/case no. 03D/III/2015-2016 dated 29/08/2015 which was subsequently approved by the Hon’ble Mayor. Further more a completion certificate U/R 28 of KMC Bldg. Rule 2009 issued to the applicant vide no. B/12/III/2015-16 dated 02/02/2016.”

¶13

Mr. Ghosh has placed Section 400 (3) of the

¶14

KMC Act.

¶15

The said provision lays down:-

¶16

“Section 400(3) in Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980:-

¶17

(3)Any person aggrieved by an order of the Municipal Commissioner made under sub-section (1) may, within thirty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal against the order to the Municipal Building Tribunal appointed under Section 415.”

¶18

The petitioner entered into the premises in this case in the year 2017 . A completion certificate in accordance with law was issued under Rule 28 of the KMC Building Rule, 2009 vide no. B/12/III/2015-16 dated 02.02. 2016.

¶19

Considering the said facts, the petitioner, if aggrieved, has to approach the concerned authority with a fresh prayer which the authority may consider in accordance with law but against the said order issuing

¶20

¶21

completion certificate on 02.02.2016, an appeal lies before the Tribunal, as per Section 400(3) of the KMC Act.

¶22

The present writ petition thus being not maintainable stands disposed of.

¶23

All connected applications, if any, stand

¶24

disposed of.

¶25

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶26