Supreme Court clarifies Municipal Authority’s Power in Building Plan Disputes: Debabrata Saha vs. Serampore Municipality (2021)

Date of the Judgment: September 01, 2021
Citation: Debabrata Saha vs. Serampore Municipality & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3657 of 2010
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and B.R. Gavai, J.
Can a municipal authority revoke a building plan based on misrepresentation, and what is the extent of its jurisdiction in such matters? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving a property dispute in Serampore, West Bengal. The core issue revolved around whether the Chairman of the Serampore Municipality had the authority to revoke a building plan, or if that power rested with the Board of Councilors. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice B.R. Gavai, with the opinion authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao.

Case Background

The case originated from a property dispute in Serampore, West Bengal. The Appellant, Debabrata Saha, purchased the ground floor of a two-storied building on 14th August 2002. The mutation of the property was done in his name on 12th March 2003. The third Respondent, who owned the first floor, began construction on the roof of the second floor on 31st December 2003. The Appellant filed complaints with the local police and the Chairman of the Serampore Municipality, alleging illegal construction. When no action was taken, the Appellant approached the High Court of Calcutta.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court initially directed the Serampore Municipality to consider the Appellant’s complaints. The Board of Councilors, on 14th February 2006, found that Respondent No. 3 had obtained permission for construction through misrepresentation and revoked the sanctioned plan. Subsequently, the High Court directed the municipality to initiate demolition proceedings under Section 218 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1996. Respondent No. 3 challenged the cancellation of the building plan, and a single judge of the High Court directed him to pursue an alternate remedy of appeal. However, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court allowed Respondent No. 3’s appeal, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of Section 217 and Section 218 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1996. Section 217 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1996 deals with the power of the municipal authority to address misrepresentation or fraudulent statements in applications for building plan sanctions. Section 218 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1996 pertains to the demolition of illegal constructions. The High Court’s decision hinged on whether the Chairman of the Municipality had the jurisdiction to revoke the building plan under Section 217 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1996, or if that power rested with the Board of Councilors.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The Appellant argued that the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and three other members of the Council were present at the meeting on 27th December 2005, where a decision was taken that Respondent No. 3 had obtained permission for construction on the second floor by misrepresentation and suppression of facts.
• The Appellant contended that the decision to revoke the building plan was validly taken by the Board of Councilors.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The Respondent argued that Section 217 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1996 requires a decision to be taken by the municipal council and not by the Chairman of the Municipality.
• The Respondent asserted that the order dated 14.02.2006, which was passed by the Chairman of the Serampore Municipality, was without jurisdiction.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was:

1. Whether the Chairman of the Serampore Municipality had the jurisdiction to revoke a building plan under Section 217 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1996 or if that power rested with the Board of Councilors.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the dispute relating to the right of Respondent No.3 in making a construction on the roof of the first floor has to be decided by the civil court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any cases or books in its judgment. The judgment primarily relied on the interpretation of Section 217 and Section 218 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1996.

Judgment

The Court held that the order dated 14.02.2006 passed by the Chairman of the Serampore Municipality was without jurisdiction. Consequently, the order dated 05.06.2006, which directed action under Section 218 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1996, for demolition of the structure, was also deemed invalid. The Court noted that the dispute regarding the construction on the roof of the first floor should be decided by a civil court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the interpretation of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1996, specifically Sections 217 and 218. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory procedure, highlighting that the Chairman of the Municipality acted beyond his jurisdiction. The Court also considered the fact that the dispute between the parties was not purely a municipal matter but also involved a private property dispute, which should be adjudicated by a civil court.

The Court stated, “The High Court is right in holding that the order dated 14.02.2006 passed by the Chairman of the Serampore Municipality is without jurisdiction.” The Court also noted, “There is no error committed by the High Court in holding that the order dated 05.06.2006 by which action was directed to be initiated under Section 218 of the Act for demolition of the structure does not survive as the basis of the said order was the order dated 14.02.2006 passed by the Municipality.” Further, the Court observed, “Any dispute relating to that right has to be decided by the civil court as held correctly by the High Court.”

Key Takeaways

• Municipal authorities must adhere to the statutory procedures outlined in the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1996.
• The Chairman of the Serampore Municipality did not have the jurisdiction to revoke the building plan; this power rests with the Board of Councilors.
• Disputes involving private property rights should be adjudicated by a civil court, not by the municipal authority.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions, but upheld the High Court’s decision, which had left it open to the parties to approach a civil court to redress their grievances.

Development of Law

The judgment clarifies the jurisdictional limits of the Chairman of a municipality in comparison to the Board of Councilors, emphasizing that the power to decide on misrepresentation or fraudulent statements in the application for building plan sanction rests with the Board of Councilors and not with the Chairman. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the municipal authority has to follow the procedure laid down in the statute and that the private property disputes should be decided by the civil court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court reiterated that the Chairman of the Serampore Municipality did not have the authority to revoke the building plan, and the dispute regarding construction on the roof should be resolved in a civil court. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and respecting the jurisdictional limits of municipal authorities.