‘Illegal buildings invite loss of human lives’: Calcutta High Court upholds demolition order

The order noted that the construction had been carried out without any sanctioned plan from Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC), and the incidents are not unknown where buildings constructed in such a manner have collapsed, costing the lives of several human beings.

Dispute over unauthorised structure

The case arose from a challenge to a demolition order passed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) against an alleged unauthorised structure at 11C, Ballygunge Station Road, Kolkata.

The petitioners, Sumita Mondal and others, claimed they were tenants in the premises and challenged the order of the Municipal Building Tribunal, which had upheld the demolition.

Appearing for the petitioners, advocates Sounak Bhattacharya, Sounak Mandal, and Bipasha Bhattacharyya submitted that the order passed by the Municipal Building Tribunal of demolition is illegal and non est as the premises in dispute do not even fall within the definition of the “building” as provided under Section 2, sub-section (5) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.

Counsel for the petitioners has also invited the attention of the Court to the contradiction in the case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation regarding the age and duration of the alleged unauthorised construction.

State’s stand

Appearing for the KMC, Advocate Subhrangsu Panda and Ina Bhattacharyya submitted that the building department of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation duly inspected the property and verified the record, and it was found that several persons have occupied the said property in question since the year 1984.

It has further been submitted that upon the complaints being received, the KMC initiated the proceedings in respect of unauthorized construction and took appropriate steps under Section 400 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.

It was further argued that the demolition order was passed in accordance with the law after taking into account the submissions of all the parties concerned.

Unauthorised construction confirmed: Order

• There is no doubt about the settled proposition that the court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, has to deal with the Act with circumspection.
• The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only when there is manifest illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

• The revisional court cannot substitute its own view merely because an alternative view is possible.
• This court, within the limited scope of jurisdiction to be exercised, has examined the facts of the case.
• The construction has been carried out without any sanctioned plan from KMC.

Final order

The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Municipal Building Tribunal’s demolition order. It held that the structure was an unauthorised construction raised without any sanctioned building plan and found no illegality or perversity in the tribunal’s decision. The court stressed that illegal constructions pose a serious threat to human lives.