HOTEL SEA GULL versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 576 · Decided: 19-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
HOTEL SEA GULL 
v. 
ST A TE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
MARCH 19, 2002 
[V.N. KHARE, ASHOK BHAN AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Urban Development : 
West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979: 
Section 46-Permission for development-Construction of second floor 
over existing building-Held: Such construction amount~ to "building 
operations" and thus "development"-Hence, permission is clearly required 
for development of the existing building. 
Section 46(3)(i)(b)-Permission for development-Development p/an-
Non-existence of-Held, Permission is required even when development plan 
has not come into operation. 
Section 51-Permissionfor development-Revocation and modification 
E of-Held, no duty is cast upon the owner to intimate the planning authority 
about the existence of his planning permission-It is the duty of the planning 
authority to issue notice to the owner before revoking or modifying the planning 
permission already in existence. Section 51 (2)-Compensation-Payment of-
Held, Planning Authority is not liable to pay compensation for demolition of 
unathorised construction. 
F 
Section 13 7 (2)-0verriding effect of-Sanction for development-
Obtained under some other /aw-Validity of-Held, fresh approval under 
S.46(1) is required to be taken-Earlier sanction is not valid 
Section 51and137(2)-Scope and ambit of-Held, there is no conflict 
G between Ss. 51 and 137(2)-They operate in two separate fields without 
interfering with each other. 
Words & Phrases: 
"Building operations"-Meaning of-In the context ofS.2(3) of the West 
H 
576 
HOTEL SEAGULLv. STATE 
577 
Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979. 
"Development"-Meaning of-ln the context ofS.2(7) of the West Bengal 
Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979. 
"Expedient"-Meaning of-In the context S.51(1) of the West Bengal 
A 
Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, l 979. 
B 
The appellant-Hotel was sanctioned a plan by the Gram Panchayat to 
construct 5 storeys (Ground floor+ 4 floors). Pursuant to the said plan the 
hotel comprising of the ground floor and first floor was constructed. 
Subsequently, the appellant started construction of the second floor on the 
existing hotel building. Respondent No. 2 issued notices under Sections 53(1) C 
and 54 of the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) 
Act, 1979 requiring the appellant to demolish the construction of the second 
floor on the ground that permission for development under Section 46(1) of 
the Act was not obtained by the appellant. 
The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging D 
the aforesaid notices. The High Court considered two points, namely, whether 
the permission under Section 46 of the Act· was required f?r development of 
the existing building or for development of vacant land only; and whether 
permission for development under Section 46 of the Act was required even. 
in the absence of the development plan. The High Court decided both the E 
points against the appellant and dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that Section 46 of the Act 
provided for planning permission being obtained only to new constructions 
to be made on vacant plots or additions or alterations to be made to the 
existing buildings where no planning permission had already been obtained; 
that Section 46(1) had no application whatsoever to cases where planning 
permissions had already been obtained prior to the new law coming into force; 
that it was the duty of the planning authority to ascertain and take steps by 
issuing a notice to the owner before revoking or modifying the planning 
permission already in existence; and that the planning authority was liable 
F 
to pay compensation to the appellant under Section 56(2) for demolishing the G 
construction of the second floor. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that raising a further 
construction over the existing first floor of the Hotel building amounted to 
building operations under Section 2(3) and thus development under Section 
2(7) and, therefore, permission under Section 46(1) was required for H 
578 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A construction of the second floor; that Section 137(2)(b) had an overriding effect 
and, therefore, permission obtained from the Gram Panchayat was invalid 
and of no avail. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD : l. A combined reading of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.