In a congested Kolkata lane, a building approved for just the first floor was allegedly raised to four storeys without authorisation. The Calcutta High Court has now upheld the developer and owner’s convictions, saying the law does not require a collapse or a separate structural audit to show that such unauthorised construction was likely to put public safety at risk.
The case also echoes the Satya Niketan building collapse, which highlighted the risks of unsafe construction and weak enforcement of building norms. The Calcutta High Court ruling brings that concern back into focus, stressing the risks when construction goes beyond civic approval.
Justice Uday Kumar was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by developer Biplab Saha and property owner Shukla Das, challenging their convictions over the construction of a house in Kolkata.
“Unauthorised and unlawful construction in a congested urban metropolis like Kolkata is not merely a civil infraction of municipal rules; it is a direct assault on public safety, civic infrastructure, and the collective right of citizens to live in a safe and regulated environment. When developers and property owners choose to treat municipal sanction limits as mere suggestions rather than binding commands, the criminal law must step in to enforce discipline,” the court said on September 3.
It added that when an unauthorised multi-storey building such as ground floor plus three floors (G+3) is erected in a congested urban access lane against a restricted ground floor plus one floor (G+1) sanctioned plan, the likelihood of a public hazard is a direct statutory presumption grounded in objective physical reality.
Conviction for unauthorised construction
The case arose from a complaint filed by a Kolkata Municipal Corporation assistant engineer on February 12, 2017. The sanctioned plan, dated March 31, 2016, permitted construction only up to G+1 because of the constraints posed by the narrow access passage. The prosecution alleged that Saha and Das instead raised a G+3 structure in violation of the sanction.
Saha and Das were convicted for unauthorised construction of the building that endangered, or was likely to endanger, human life or disrupt civic infrastructure, an offence punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment and a Rs 50,000 fine. The case involved deviations in open spaces, floor area ratio, ground coverage and height; the court noted that the permitted height of 6.7 metres was “grossly violated”.
Story continues below this ad
The prosecution examined seven witnesses and produced 16 exhibits, including the sanctioned plan of the building , stop-work notices and infringement statement. The trial court sentenced both to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a Rs 50,000 fine, but the appellate court retained the convictions while reducing Saha’s sentence to three months’ simple imprisonment and Das’s to imprisonment till the rising of the court, with the Rs 50,000 fine for each.
Court rejects demand for structural audit
The petitioners argued that the prosecution lacked independent scientific evidence such as soil tests, structural audits or expert reports to show the building posed a danger. However, the high court rejected this, holding that the law covers construction that “endangers or is likely to endanger” people or civic infrastructure.
It said an actual collapse or post-facto forensic evidence was not necessary once the unauthorised construction of the building and its circumstances were proved through municipal records and witness testimony. “Post-facto structural forensic audits or soil test reports are not mandatory prerequisites once the physical existence and illegal inception of an unmonitored high-rise expansion are conclusively proved through municipal records and ocular testimony,” the court said.
The court also rejected challenges to the prosecution’s initiation, holding that technical objections over administrative approval or service of stop-work notices could not undo a full trial where guilt had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Story continues below this ad
Developer, owner treated differently
The high court also declined to interfere with the appellate court’s approach to sentencing. It noted that the appellate court had distinguished between the culpability of the commercial developer and that of the property owner. Saha’s sentence was retained at three months’ simple imprisonment, while Das’s sentence was reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court, taking into account her age and status as a passive owner. The Rs 50,000 fine imposed on each was retained.
It said that its revisional jurisdiction was limited and was not equivalent to a second appeal. It found no glaring defect, perversity or gross miscarriage of justice in the concurrent findings of the trial courts.
Finding no patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or gross miscarriage of justice, the court dismissed the revision petition. There was no order as to costs, and any interim orders were vacated.
