The High Court’s examination of a municipality dispute involving construction rights on a property delves into the legal intricacies of decision-making authority. The court’s focus on interpreting Section 217 of the Act and scrutinizing the actions of the Municipality’s Board of Councilors provides valuable insights into the complexities of administrative and legal processes in such cases.
Facts
- The Appellant purchased the ground floor of a two storied building at 45/2/G.T. Road (West) Serampore on 14.08.2002.
- Mutation was done in the name of the Appellant on 12.03.2003.
- Complaint was made by the Appellant regarding illegal construction by Respondent No.3 on the second floor.
- High Court directed municipal corporation to initiate proceedings for demolition of illegal construction on the second floor.
- Respondent No.3 filed a Writ Petition challenging cancellation of the building plan.
- High Court opined that the dispute required adjudication by a civil court.
- Board of Councilors decided that Respondent No.3 obtained permission for construction on the second floor by misrepresentation.
- Chairman’s order revoking sanctioned plan in favor of Respondent No.3 was declared null and void by the High Court.
- High Court directed the Board of Councilors to consider representations made by the Appellant on specific dates.
- Appellant’s right to use certain common areas and roof rights were upheld by the High Court.
- The High Court examined the records from the Municipal Corporation.
- It was found that the Chairman of the Board of Councilors heard the matter on 27.12.2005 at the Municipal Office.
- During the hearing, the Appellant, Respondent No.3, Shri Avijit Saha, and Shri Amitava Dey were present.
- The High Court concluded that the Board of Councilors did not properly hear the matter or make a decision as required by Section 217 of the Act.
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Seniority Fixation in Contempt Petitions
Arguments
- Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that there is ambiguity in Section 217 of the Act regarding decision-making authority.
- Perusal of the Minutes of Meeting dated 27.12.2005 showed the presence of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and three other Members of the Municipal Corporation.
- A decision was made in the meeting to recommend appropriate action under Section 217 and for a reasoned order to be passed after the Board of Councilors meeting.
- Subsequently, the order dated 14.02.2006 was passed by the Chairman of the Serampore Municipality.
Also Read: Land Dispute Legal Analysis
Analysis
- The High Court did not commit an error in holding that the order for demolition of the structure does not survive
- The basis of the order was a previous order passed by the Municipality
- The High Court correctly interpreted the situation regarding the order dated 05.06.2006
Also Read: Analysis of Authorization and Limitation in Filing Section 7 Application
Decision
- The Appellant purchased the ground floor of the property in dispute on 14.08.2002.
- The Appeal has been dismissed.
- The dispute is regarding the right of Respondent No.3 to construct on the roof of the first floor where he resides.
- Any disputes related to this right must be resolved by the civil court, as determined by the High Court.
Case Title: DEBABRATA SAHA Vs. SERAMPORE MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS (2021 INSC 433)
Case Number: C.A. No.-003657-003657 / 2010
