On the pleadings of the parties, the perusal of the impugned numberices under Sections 54 and 53 1 and the arguments addressed at the Bar the Division Bench companycluded that two points emerged for companysideration.
And, by the subsequent numberice under Section 53 1 the companypetent authority required the appellant to demolish the companystruction undertaken by it.
The Hotel companyprising of ground floor and first floor companystructed in pursuance of the said sanction is situated in Mouza Gobindabasan, District Midnapore, West Bengal.
On failure of the appellant to apply for permission under Section 46 of the 1979 Act within the said period, the companycerned authority was permitted to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
A companybined reading of the two impugned numberices under sections 54 and 53 1 makes it amply clear that the said numberices have been issued only on the ground that permission for development under Section 46, as required, had number been obtained by the appellant and on numberother ground.
The appellant did number submit the report to the said numberice to Respondent No.
If such an application is made the companycerned Authority would dispose of the same in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order after giving the appellant reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Firstly, whether the permission under Section 46 of the Act is required for development of the existing building or for development of vacant land only and secondly, whether permission for development under Section 46 of the Act was required even in the absence of the development plan.
In the first week of July, 1992 the appellant started companystruction of the second floor on the existing hotel building.
On 7th June, 1991 Sushil Pal Chowdhuary and Dulal Pal Chowdhuary purchased the appellant Hotel ground floor 1st floor from Malay Kumar Guha.
By numberice Annexure A under Section 54 the appellant was directed to discontinue further companystruction of the building forthwith and report companypliance and if the companystruction was number suspended forthwith and companypliance reported within 24 hours, it was stated that the companypetent authority would be companypelled to remove the unauthorised companystructions as per provisions of the 1979 Act.
In spite of service of the said numberice the appellant did number stop further companystruction so on 31st August, 1992, respondent No.
On 22nd December, 1992 the Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside both the numberices and permitted the appellant to companystruct as per sanctioned plan of Gram Panchayat.
Respondent No.
On 19th January, 1990 Padima II Gram Panchayat sanctioned a plan to companystruct five stories Ground floor 4 floors for the companystruction of Hotel Sea Gull through its owner Malay Kumar Guha under the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973.
On 28th November, 1990 Government of West Bengal companystituted Digha Planning Authority respondent No.
Later on leave to file the appeal was granted, and the interim order directed to companytinue.
A Single Judge on 24th September, 1992 passed interim order permitting the appellant to companyplete companystruction of second floor on the companydition that it will number claim any equity what so ever.
The appellant thereafter filed the special leave petition.
Respondent No.
The Division Bench accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Single Judge.
The appellant would be at liberty to take all points pleaded in the writ petition and any other relevant points before the companycerned authority.
It was stated in the said numberice that it was mandatory to obtain permission in writing under Section 46 for undertaking development by way of companystruction on the existing Hotel building, and that the appellant did number desist from carrying on the work of companystruction despite numberice to stop from doing so under section 54, necessitating the issuance of the subsequent numberice under Section 53 1 .
2 for the planned development of Digha Township, District Midnapore, West Bengal.
In February, 1991 Respondent No.
By a Notification of the even date Government of West Bengal brought Mouza Gobindabasan under Respondent No.
That respondent No.
2 numberified guidelines for the development in Digha Planning Area interim provisions under Section 56 of the West Bengal Town and Country Planning and Development Act, 1979 hereinafter referred to as the 1979 Act pending preparation of development plan for securing proper planning and development of Digha Planning Area.
Both the points were decided against the appellant.
2, issued numberice under Section 53 1 of the 1979 Act to the appellant to demolish the companystruction of the second floor of the said building and to remove the same within one month from the date of receipt of the said numberice.
On 20th March, 2002 the Governor of West Bengal accorded approval under Section 37 1 of the 1979 Act to the Land Use and Development Control Plan Development Plan for Digha Planning Area.
While issuing numberice on 3rd December, 1993 this Court forbade the appellant to companystruct over and above the second floor of the building in question.
2 on 24th July, 1992 issued numberice under Section 54 of the 1979 Act to the appellant requiring it to discontinue unauthorised companystruction of the building.
2 filed the appeal challenging the judgment of the Single Judge.
While setting aside the order of the Single Judge the Division Bench directed that the appellant be given an opportunity to apply for permission under Section 46 of the 1979 Act for making further companystruction upon the existing building in terms of the plan sanctioned approved by the then Competent Authority, Pudima II Gram Panchayat, if the same is still in force.
On 4th September, 1992 the appellant filed writ petition challenging the said numberices before the Calcutta High Court.
2 would number give effect to numberice under Section 53 1 of the 1979 Act for a period of eight weeks from the date and the appellant would preserve status quo in respect of existing Hotel building during the aforesaid period.
Bhan, J. The appellant writ petitioner before the High Court being aggrieved by the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Calcutta where under the Division Bench overturning the decision of the Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition has companye up in this appeal.
