DIPAK KUMAR MUKHERJEE versus KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS

DIPAK KUMAR MUKHERJEE versus KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS

Since construction in violation of sanctioned plan was undisputed and demolition order already passed by Municipal Corporation, regularisation was not permissible. The builder was not entitled to benefit of Rule 25 as construction violated statutory provisions and regularisation application was made post-completion. Builder directed to compensate affected purchasers and to pay substantial penalty for continued violation.

Parties
Appellant: Dipak Kumar Mukherjee; Respondents: Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of Calcutta High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Judgment of Division Bench of Calcutta High Court set aside.
Legal Topics
Unauthorised Construction, Demolition, Building Regulations, Compensation to Purchasers, Contempt of Court
Municipal Law Urban Development Property Law Civil Procedure Unauthorised Construction Demolition Building Regulations Compensation to Purchasers +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dipak Kumar Mukherjee

Appellant

Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of Calcutta High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether unauthorised construction in violation of sanctioned plan can be regularised under Rule 25 of Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 1990
  2. 2 Legality and consequences of unauthorised construction
  3. 3 Duty of public authorities to demolish illegal constructions and compensate affected persons

Ratio Decidendi

Since construction in violation of sanctioned plan was undisputed and demolition order already passed by Municipal Corporation, regularisation was not permissible. The builder was not entitled to benefit of Rule 25 as construction violated statutory provisions and regularisation application was made post-completion. Builder directed to compensate affected purchasers and to pay substantial penalty for continued violation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Judgment of Division Bench of Calcutta High Court set aside.

Orders

  • Respondent No.7 to refund cost of flats etc. to purchasers with interest at 18% per annum from date of payment within three months.
  • Occupiers of illegal/unauthorised construction to vacate within one month.