9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Calcutta Municipal Corporation can compel the petitioners to submit a no-objection certificate under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. 2. Whether the Municipal Authority can refuse or withhold the sanction of the building plan due to the non-submission of the no-objection certificate. 3. Compliance with provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, and related rules and regulations. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Submission of No-Objection Certificate: The petitioners argued that the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (CMC) could not withhold the sanction of the building plan on the grounds of not furnishing a no-objection certificate from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority. The petitioners contended that there was no provision under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, which empowered the Municipal Authorities to demand such a certificate as a condition for sanctioning a building plan. The respondents, however, maintained that while dealing with the proposal for sanctioning a building plan, the Corporation Authorities must consider various aspects, including compliance with the Urban Land Ceiling Act. They argued that the petitioners themselves had stated that they would submit the no-objection certificate shortly, which they failed to do. Additionally, the premises had not been separated and mutated in favor of the petitioners, leading to conditional acceptance of the application. 2. Refusal or Withholding of Sanction: The court examined Sections 393 and 394 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, along with Rules 47 to 50 of Schedule XVI, which outline the requirements for submitting a building plan for sanction. The court noted that Rule 47(2) mandates the submission of various documents and plans, while Rule 48 specifies the particulars to be included in the application. Rule 51 of Schedule XVI provides that all necessary information and objections must be addressed before deciding on the permission to erect a building. Rule 52 outlines the grounds on which permission may be refused, including the non-furnishing of required information or documents. Section 396 of the Act provides for the provisional sanction or refusal of building plans, stating that sanction may be refused if the building or work contravenes any provisions of the Act, rules, regulations, or any other law in force. However, the court found that the requirement for a no-objection certificate from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority was not explicitly prescribed under the Act or the Rules. 3. Compliance with Provisions of the Act: The court considered the rival contentions and concluded that none of the clauses under Section 396(2) had been infringed by the petitioners. The court emphasized that the clearance certificate under the Urban Land Ceiling Act was neither an information nor a document required by the Municipal Commissioner under the Act or the Rules. Therefore, the non-furnishing of the certificate did not constitute a contravention of Section 396(2)(c). The court also referred to several precedents, including decisions in the cases of Municipal Board v. Mohd Jaki, Mahadeo Prasad v. Government, United Provinces, Krishna Narayan Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, Subhas Kumar Lohade v. Special Officer, Municipal Corporation, and Y. D. Properties & Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. Competent Authority. These cases supported the view that the Municipal Authorities must proceed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Act and cannot refuse sanction based on requirements not prescribed by the Act. Conclusion: The court concluded that the direction of the Municipal Corporation requiring the petitioners to furnish a no-objection certificate from the Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act was without jurisdiction. The court allowed the application, directing the Calcutta Municipal Corporation to proceed with sanctioning the plan in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, without requiring the petitioners to produce the no-objection certificate. The court also clarified that this order would not prevent the Urban Land Ceiling Authority from proceeding against the petitioners under the Urban Land Ceiling Act if deemed necessary. The judgment mandated that the sanction be granted within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order, and all parties were directed to act on the operative part of the judgment based on the undertaking of the Advocate on Record for the petitioners.
|
