Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.42 seconds)The Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980
Section 13 in The Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 [Entire Act]
Nandalal Ladia And Anr. vs Provudayal Tikriwalla And Anr. on 22 June, 1951
It is settled law that there is no obligation under the ordinary law on the part of a defendant towards the plaintiff which requires the former to make construction on his own land strictly in accordance with the Municipal Rules and Regulations (vide Nandalal Ladia and another v. Provudayal Tikriwalla, , Ila Pal Chowdhury v. K. C. Dutt, ILR (1958) 1 Cal 143, Lalit 'Mohan Mitra v. Samirendra Kumar Ghosh, ). We have already mentioned that the respondent No. 1, Namdang Tea Co. Ltd., has instituted a civil suit against the appellants. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation is, however, nor a party in the said suit. We have also mentioned that the respondent No. 1 has not yet been able to obtain from civil Court any order of temporary injunction restraining the present appellants from making construction upon the lawn or vacant land at premises No. 11/1. Sunny Park.
Lalit Mohan Mitra And Ors. vs Samirendra Kumar Ghosh And Ors. on 13 January, 1977
8. The locus standi of the petitioner in a writ application to challenge the validity of a municipal sanction obtained by another person may not be decided only by referring to the provisions of Specific Relief Act. But such a petitioner must also establish that the sanction granted by the Municipal Authorities in favour of another infringes some legal right claimed by him. We respectfully agree with the observations of P, N. Mookerjee and Renupada Mukherjee, JJ. in the case of Ila Pal Chowdhury v. K. C. Dutta, (ILR (1958) 1 Cal 143) (supra), regarding the import of the decisions of this Court in Re : Lukshmi Mont Dassi, (1941)45 Cal WN 401 : (AIR 1941 Cal 3911, A.C. Mohamad v. Corporation of Calcutta, (1941) 45 Cal WN 408 and Hirendra Nath Dutta v. Corporation of Calcutta, (1941)
45 Cal WN 413 : (AIR 1941 Cai 386). In all the three cases arising under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 there were clear findings that the breaches of the Municipal Rules complained of were prejudicial to the sanitation or ventilation of the neighbouring building and the relief or remedy under consideration, (sic) only the issue of mandamus.
Hirendra Nath Datta vs Corporation Of Calcutta And Ors. on 20 January, 1941
8. The locus standi of the petitioner in a writ application to challenge the validity of a municipal sanction obtained by another person may not be decided only by referring to the provisions of Specific Relief Act. But such a petitioner must also establish that the sanction granted by the Municipal Authorities in favour of another infringes some legal right claimed by him. We respectfully agree with the observations of P, N. Mookerjee and Renupada Mukherjee, JJ. in the case of Ila Pal Chowdhury v. K. C. Dutta, (ILR (1958) 1 Cal 143) (supra), regarding the import of the decisions of this Court in Re : Lukshmi Mont Dassi, (1941)45 Cal WN 401 : (AIR 1941 Cal 3911, A.C. Mohamad v. Corporation of Calcutta, (1941) 45 Cal WN 408 and Hirendra Nath Dutta v. Corporation of Calcutta, (1941)
45 Cal WN 413 : (AIR 1941 Cai 386). In all the three cases arising under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 there were clear findings that the breaches of the Municipal Rules complained of were prejudicial to the sanitation or ventilation of the neighbouring building and the relief or remedy under consideration, (sic) only the issue of mandamus.
K. Ramadas Shenoy vs The Chief Officers, Town Municipal ... on 9 August, 1974
The Supreme Court in the case of K. Ramdas Shenoy v. Town Municipal Council, Udipi, , also upheld the locus standi of the petitioner of the said case to challenge the legality of the construction of a cinema building in a residential area on the ground that such illegal and unauthorised construction of a cinema building was likely to affect the right to or enjoyment of the property by persons residing in the said residential area. Thus, when a monthly tenant files a writ petition challenging the validity of a building plan obtained by his landlord, he must establish that the said sanction interferes with his right to enjoy tenancy granted to him. The aforesaid reported cases also decided the question of locus standi of a person aggrieved to file a writ petition not at the stage prior to the granting of sanction to a building plan but at the post-sanction stage. These decisions do not lay down that before granting sanction of a building plan a person who does not claim that he is entitled to erect upon the holding itself ought to be given opportunity of hearing.
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Sm. Pratima Sarkar vs Corporation Of Calcutta And Ors. on 5 June, 1973
5. Prima facie, before granting of permission under Rule 55 of Schedule XVI of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, (1951) the respondent No. 1, who was a monthly tenant under the appellant No. 2, was not entitled to receive any notice of hearing. Schedule XVI does not contain any provision for giving such notice or opportunity of hearing to the monthly tenant of the premises, in case the owner or the landlord of the said premises applies for sanction of a plan for building, rebuilding and/or additions or alterations. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants in this connection has strongly relied upon the decision of B. C. Mitra and Janah. JJ. in the case of Sm. Pratima Sarkar v. Corporation of Calcutta, AIR 1973 Cal 484. The Division Bench in para 9 of their judgment held that there was no provision in Schedule XVI of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 requiring the Corporation to issue notice or to give hearing to the owner of an adjoining building before granting sanction to a plan for proposed construction. We respectfully agree
with the said view and for the identical reasons hold that the sanction obtained by the appellants cannot prima facie, be challenged only on the ground that the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities did not give any notice to the respondent No. 1, who was a monthly tenant.