Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

There will, however be no order as to costs."

6. The petitioner in the writ petition has mentioned about the following specific deviation having been occurred in constructing building over the disputed premise.

"on the east of the captioned premises there is a concrete passage the width varying from 820m to 970mm. It is not mentioned in the drawing whether the passage belong to HMC or a common passage.
Presently, i.e. on the date of inspection, the construction has been found stopped, i.e. framed structure completed up to G+6, no ongoing construction has been noticed.
Going through the papers/documents, it has also become evident, that during the construction of the building in question, horizontal deviations had been noticed by the concerned SAE & a stop work notice was served upon the builders U/S 177(1) of HMC Act 1980 (as amended). Subsequently a case was opened vide BMR 320/16-17. Later on, the case was withdrawn in lieu of fees.
At present, an encroachment over the land gifted to HMC for corner splaying, has been noticed (S-E corner)."

23. The Corporation seeks to justify its action on the ground that a subsequent plan was submitted and, upon satisfaction regarding structural stability, the same was sanctioned in lieu of fees. However, such justification cannot be sustained in law.

24. The statutory scheme governing building regulations does not contemplate post facto regularisation of substantial and deliberate deviations which go to the root of the sanctioned plan. A distinction must be maintained between (i) minor or permissible deviations during construction, and (ii) substantial, conscious and completed unauthorized constructions. The present case falls squarely within the latter category. In this regard, provision under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 2009 as applicable in case of the Howrah Municipal Corporation may be mentioned. According to Rule 26 of the Rules of 2009, no deviation from the sanction plan is allowed at the time of construction of building. Rule 26(1) has provided that, no deviation from the sanction plan shall be made during erection or execution of any work.

36. The preliminary objection as to lack of locus standi of the petitioners is devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected. The petitioners are admittedly residents of the adjoining premises and have specifically alleged that the impugned construction, raised in deviation of the sanctioned plan and in violation of statutory building rules, has adversely affected their right to safe enjoyment of their property and the surrounding environment. In matters relating to unauthorized construction, it is well-settled that a neighbouring owner or occupier has sufficient locus to approach the writ court, as such construction has direct bearing on issues of light, air, safety, access and planned development of the locality. The grievance raised is not in the nature of a private dispute simpliciter, but concerns enforcement of statutory obligations cast upon the municipal authorities. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be non-suited on the ground of absence of locus standi, and the writ petition is maintainable at their instance.