Shri.Dinesh Mohan Singh v. Smti.Sangeeta Singh And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/55/2024 IA No.CAN/1/2024 Shri Dinesh Mohan Singh Vs.
Smt Sangeeta Singh and others Mr. A.S.Zinu ... for the appellant Mr. KMB Jayapal ... for the respondent No.1 Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the Administration October 7, 2024 [SR] Item no. 3 The grievance of the appellant is directed against an order dated 29 August 2024 whereby the Learned Single Judge has directed implementation of a demolition order dated 22 March, 2024.
It appears from the impugned order that respondent no.1 was initially represented and thereafter chose not to be unrepresented on the day when the impugned order was passed.
Briefly, the respondent no.1 and the writ petitioner are family members. The writ petitioner had filed this writ petition seeking implementation of a provisional order dated 18 August, 2022 read with the final order dated 22 March 2024. By such orders, the respondent Administration found that the subject building has been constructed without any building plan. In this background, a right of hearing was
afforded to the appellant. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the respondent Administration directed demolition in view of the fact that the entire construction had been raised without any sanction plan. On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that a statutory appeal has been filed. However, no stay has been obtained. It is also contended that the subject building is an old building and only renovation works had been carried out. On behalf of the Administration, it is submitted that diverse notices dated 24 June 2022, 14 July, 2022 and 22 March 2024 respectively the appellant refused to stop construction. As such, the appellant had full notice and knowledge of the impugned proceedings.
On behalf of the respondent no.1, it is submitted that there are no grounds which have made out warranting any interference with the impugned order. The impugned order is well reasoned and admittedly there was no sanction plan authorizing construction. The respondent no.1 also submits that the statutory appeal filed before the Revenue Officer is not maintainable in the eye of law. In support of their contention, reliance is placed on the decision in Deepak Kumar Mukherjee Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Others (2013) 5 SCC 336.
We find that there are no grounds whatsoever which have been made out justifying any interference with the impugned order. The impugned order is reasoned and confirms the provisional order dated 18 August 2022 read
with the final order dated 22 March 2024. It appear from the documents relied on by the Administration that the appellant had full notice and knowledge of the proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities and despite there being no sanction building plan pursued the construction. In Deepak Kumar Mukherjee (Supra), it has been held as follows:
Illegal and unauthorised constructions of buildings and other structure not only violate the municipal laws and the concept of planned development of the particular area but also affect various fundamental and constitutional rights of other persons. The common man feels cheated when he finds that those making illegal and unauthorised constructions are supported by the people entrusted with the duty of preparing and executing master plan/development plan/zonal plan. The failure of the State apparatus to take prompt action to demolish such illegal constructions has convinced the citizens that planning laws are enforced only against poor and all compromises are made by the State machinery when it is required to deal with those who have money power or unholy nexus with the power corridors. Therefore, there should be no judicial tolerance of illegal and unauthorized constructions by those who treat the law to be their subservient.
In such view of the matter, there are no grounds warranting any interference with the impugned order. As recorded in the orders passed by the respondent Administration, the structures which has been directed to be demolished have been raised without any building plan. With the above directions, MAT/55/2024 alongwith all connected applications stand dismissed. Liberty is granted to
the appellant to take appropriate steps for hearing of the appeal pending before the Deputy Commissioner i.e. the First Appellate Authority, in accordance with law. ( Ravi Krishan Kapur,J. ) ( Prasenjit Biswas, J. )