Decided on July 02,2019

SUBRATA DAS Respondents


Biswanath Somadder - (1.) The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 26th November, 2014, passed by a learned Single Judge in W. P. 34824 (W) of 2013 with CAN 7643 of 2014 (Subrata Das & Anr. vs. The Commissioner of K.M.C. & Ors.). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dispose of the writ petition in the following manners: - " Be that as it may, the fact remains that the respondents have concertedly asserted that the official who has issued the no objection certificate in favour of the petitioners, was incompetent so to do. Thus, the local Councillor raised the same issue about the authority of the KMDA in issuing the no objection certificate. If the no-objection certificate had been improperly issued by the KMDA in favour of the petitioners on an application made by them, it is not for the petitioners to blame for that. In the absence of any allegation against the petitioners that they were parties to such purported unauthorized issue of no objection certificate, the blame for issuing the same must be taken by the KMDA itself. It is not for the petitioners to judge or decide that the no-objection certificate issued by the KMDA was not issued by the appropriate authority. When a person makes an application to an authority for grant of a no-objection certificate and when that authority issues the same, the person in whose favour certificate is issued, has every right to act on the certificate which the petitioners did. In the present case, the letter dated October 3, 2013 issued by the Director, Statutory-planning Unit by cancelling the earlier no-objection certificate, was issued without giving the petitioner no. 2 any hearing or without putting him on notice. Surprisingly, it is the Director, Statutory planning Unit, KMDA which has issued the earlier no-objection certificate. It, thus, appears that he can cancel a previously granted no-objection certificate given by himself when he is not the authority to issue the same.
(2.) It further appears from the letter dated October 3, 2013 that since a part of the concerned land had already been acquired by the KMDA, any development work on the said land shall be deemed to be cancelled under Section 52 of the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979. Section 52 of the said Act speaks of the penalty for unauthorized development or for use otherwise. It does not speak of cancellation of any work of development taken by the petitioners. Moreover, it ought to have occurred to the appropriate authority before issuing the said letter whether the work hitherto done by the petitioners could be described as unauthorized inasmuch as it was the Director, Statutory Planning Unit, KMDA himself who had issued the no-objection certificate and on the basis of that certificate, the petitioners had taken the next course of action and submitted the building plan to the Corporation. There is absolutely no explanation given by the KMDA authorities why they at the first instance issued the no-objection certificate in favour of the petitioner No. 2 if the land had already been acquired by the KMDA. I am afraid, if a person, or for that matter anybody, acts on the basis of a no-objection certificate issued by a statutory body, his works cannot be described as unauthorized merely because it was issued by an incompetent official which is not to the knowledge of the person in whose favour such certificate is issued.
(3.) When the petitioners proceeded sufficient with the work of construction in the form of demolition of the existing structure where the petitioner No.2 was residing, a notice of cancellation of the noobjection certificate had been issued and that too without complying with the principles of natural justice.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.