Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Mr. Biswas, learned advocate representing the private respondents, took exception to Mr. Banerjee's argument that the private respondents had practiced fraud in obtaining sanction for the subsequent building plan. He argued that the issues arose when the daughters secured custody of their mother, Mira Dutta. He further contended that in the original building plan, which was submitted for the construction of a four-storied building, Mira Dutta had signed, but the time stipulated for completing the construction had expired. As a result, a new building plan was submitted to complete the construction of the first floor. He asserted that the construction was carried out in accordance with the specifications of the sanctioned building plan and that there was no deviation from the plan. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to label the construction as illegal. In support of his argument, he cited an unreported decision rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 25436 (W) of 2010.

33. The question that inevitably arises is whether it would be justified to direct the demolition of the first floor of the building. Undoubtedly, the Municipality is vested with the power to compound minor deviations from building rules. However, a Municipality, which is duty-bound to act within the confines of the law, cannot claim to have unfettered power to condone violations of building rules of this nature, nor can it claim the authority to validate a sanctioned plan obtained through the suppression of material facts, which contravenes the provisions of Section 217 of the Act of 1993.