CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR. versus SRI ANIL RATAN BANERJEE AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 191 · Decided: 26-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR. 
v. 
SRI ANIL RATAN BANERJEE AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 26, 1994 
[B.P. JEEV AN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.] 
Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1951-Bengal Municipal Act, 
1932-Construction-Multi-storeyed Building-No commencement within 
two years after sanction of plan-Construction after two years-Held, fresh 
permission to be obtained 
Bengal Municipal Act, 1932-Sections 379, 325-Deemed sanction-
Held, not applicable when the sanction sought for is prohibited under law. 
A 
B 
c 
The Respondents entered into an Agreement with an owner of a 
site. The Vendor at the instance of the Respondent had sought 
permission for construction of eight storeyed building, which was D 
sanctioned on 27.4.1985. 
The permission became inoperative since no construction took 
place in the site due to disputes between the Respondents and the 
Vendor. 
The Respondents withi~ the said period of two years, on 2.2.1987 
applied for sanction of a revised building plan with a changed layout. 
They also appl!ed for renewal of sanctioned plan on 16.4.87. 
E 
On 24.8.1987 the Respondents applied for permission to construct 
twelve floors on the basis of a new plan. Since no orders were passed in F 
any of these applications, the Respondents started to proceed with the 
construction in view of deemed permission - when it was obstructed, 
the Respondents preferred a writ petition in the High Court against the 
petitioners. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Single Judge 
had allowed the Respondents to make construction upto ground floor 
levels by interim orders subject to an undertaking that they would G 
demolish the construction, if it is found to have been made in violation 
of the Plan submitted on 24th August, 1987. 
The writ petition was allowed. The Writ Appeal filed by the 
petitioners was also dismissed. In the present S.L.P., the petitioners 
contended that (1) the Plan sanctioned on 27.4.1985 stood lapsed due to H 
191 
192 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
no construction activity; (2) there is no provision for renewal of 
sanction; (3) the sanction for 12 floors could not have been granted due 
to the law in force and (4) the maximum permissible height of the 
building is only 8 meters. 
B 
c 
D 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The responden~s are not legally entitled to make any 
construction on the basis of the deemed sanctioned plan (submitted on 
August 24., 1987) on or after September 24, 1989. (200-D) 
2. The High Court was, in error in permitting the respondents to 
proceed with the construction of the twelve storey building on the basis 
of the Plan submitted on 24.8.1987 and in giving other allied directions. 
(200-E) 
3. The construction made pursuant to the orders of the High Court 
should allowed to be retained and two more floors may be constructed 
by the Respondents but not so as to exceed the total height of eight 
metres - and not at any rate beyond nine meters. (201-A) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7056 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.3.94 of the Calcutta High Court 
E 
in F.M.A.T. No. 1718of1992. 
F 
G 
IN 
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10331 of 1994. 
Tapas Ray, Manoj Prasad, Deva Prasad Mukherjee, Rajesh and Mrs. B. 
Sunita Rao for the Appellar.ts/Petitioner. 
K.K. Venugopal and Robin Mukherjee, Rajendra Singhvi and Ashok 
K. Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B.P. JEEV AN REDDY, J. Leave granted. Heard counsel for the 
parties. 
The appeal is preferred by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation against 
the judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissing 
H 
F.M.A.T. No. 1718of1992 which was directed against the.iudgment ofa 
CALCUTT A MUN. CORPN. v. A. R. BANERJEE [JEEV AN REDDY, J.] 193 
learned single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents. The A 
.. 0 
matter pertains to the grant of permission for construction of a multi-storey 
building in the South Suburban area of Calcutta. 
Until January 4, 1984, the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 
governed the area then comprised in Calcutta municipality. The South 
Suburban area, with which we are concerned herein, was not a part of B 
Calcutta Municipal Corporation area until that date. It was an independent 
municipality, governed by the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. On January 4, 
1984, the South Suburban municipal area alongwith certain other municipal 
areas was merged with the Calc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.