According to them, numberconstruction whatsoever was undertaken on the said plot on account of the differences and disputes between the respondents arid their vendor, Sri Karnani.
This was the effect of omission of clause g of Section 635 ii with effect from the said date.
5 SCR 191 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted.
The municipal companyporation, however, says that the said plan was rejected on April 29, 1988 the respondents dispute the receipt of any such order.
On April 16, 1987, the respondents applied for renewal of the sanctioned plan dated April 27, 1985, without withdrawing the application for the revised plan submitted on February 15, 1987.
Even so, the new Act governed and applied only to the original Calcutta municipal companyporation area but number to the newly added areas including the South Suburban area.
This obstruction, according to the respondents, disentitles the municipal companyporation from objecting to or interfering with their companystruction even after the expiry of two years from August 24, 1987, or from September 24, 1987 the deemed permission is available and effective from September 24, 1987, i.e., on the expiry of thirty days from the date of application , as the case may be, The appellant corporation, however, says, firstly, that the respondents are number entitled to any deemed permission of the plan applied for on August 24, 1987 inasmuch as the law then governing did number permit companystruction of a twelve storey building on the plot of the respondents, having regard to the width of the road abutting the said plot site.
On April 27, 1985, the municipal companyporation sanctioned the plan for the companystruction of a eight storeyed building This sanction, it is obvious, was given under and governed by the provisions of Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 arid the regulations made thereunder, which were in force in the said area at that time.
On this basis, the respondents say and assert that the permission applied for by them on August 24, 1987 must be deemed to have been sanctioned on the expiry of thirty days by virtue of the Section 319 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932.
Secondly, they say that even if it is assumed that any such deemed permission can be invoked by the respondents, the same came to an end on the expiry of two years, i.e. on September 24, 1989 and inasmuch as the respondents have number Constructed the building within the said period of two years, the deemed permission, if any, can numberlonger enure to them thereafter.
However, numberconstruction was made number even companymenced within two years of the permission, with the result that the said permission became ineffective and inoperative on the expiry of the said period.
On February 2, 1987, i.e., within the said two years period, the respondents applied for sanction of a revised building plan with eight stories but with a changed layout.
They deny that they ever interfered with the companystruction of the building by the Respondents.
On February 20, 1989, the Bengal Municipal Act and the rules made thereunder ceased to apply to the newly added areas by virtue of an amendment to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.
Since, regulations governing the companystruction of buildings were number framed under the 1980 Act, the regulations made under the 1951 Act companytinued to govern the original Calcutta municipal area, while the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 including the regulations made thereunder companytinued to govern the newly added areas including South Suburban area, by virtue of Section 635 ii g of the 1980 Act.
No orders were passed by the Corporation authorities on any of these three applications within thirty days of their respective submission.
The Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 was brought into force in place of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1951.
The 1980 Act was extended to the said newly added areas with effect from the said date.
On 12th December, 1990, new building rules were issued under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.
Oh January 4, 1984, the South Suburban municipal area alongwith certain other municipal areas was merged with the Calcutta municipal companyporation area and a new Act viz.,
The respondents case is that when they proposed to proceed with the companystruction of the building in accordance with the plan submitted on August 24, 1987, in view of the deemed permission, the authorities of the companyporation obstructed the same and did number allow the companystruction to proceed.
The matter pertains to the grant of permission for companystruction of a multi storey building in the South Suburban area of Calcutta.
On August 24, 1987 the respondents applied for permission to Construct a building companyprising of twelve floors on the basis of a new plan.
They say that, at their instance, Sri Karnani applied to the Calcutta municipal companyporation for permission to companystruct multi storeyed companyplex on the said site, which is situated within the erstwhile South Suburban municipal area.
IN SLP C No.
1994 SUPPL.
The respondents writ petitioners entered into an agreement with the owner of the site companycerned herein, Sri D.R.K, Karnani, to purchase the same.
1718 of 1992 which was directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents.
10331 of 1994.
Until January 4, 1984, the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 governed the area then companyprised in Calcutta municipality The South Suburban area, with which We are companycerned herein, was number a part of Calcutta Municipal Corporation area until that date, It was an independent municipality, governed by the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932.
Heard companynsel for the parties.
The appeal is preferred by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissing F.M.A.T. No.
