Sl. No.5 v. The Midnapore Municipality & Ors.

“4. After going through the documents I planned a visit to the site, and informed a) The Midnapur Municipal Authority b) Sri Debraj Roy, owner of the said building c) Learned Advocate of the petitioner vide mail dated 11/2/25.

5. I visited the building in context on it has been found to be a 12/2/25 and [Basement+G+5] storied building. During my inspection, Sri Debraj Roy, the owner of the building and Sri Tito Sengupta, S A E of Midnapur Municipality were present.

6. I inspected the structural parameters, e.g, Columns and Beams, and noted their dimensions, which were in some deviation from the sanctioned structural drawings.

7. Since there is no way to have a view of the foundation of the building, I have to take views and comments of the supervising Engineer, Sri Tarun Roy (as stated by the owner of the building in context). On telephonic conservation, Sri Tarun Roy described the details of the parameters of the foundation, which almost tallies with the sanctioned Structural Drawing.

8. In the context of some deviations, as executed, Influence area of the columns on the western side (Left hand side) of the building gets increased resulting in enhancement of load and moment, coming on these columns. While calculating the resultant impact, the existing structural parameters of the columns have been found safe, so far as the structural parameters are concerned.

9. Furthermore, no tilt of the building is marked.” Mr. Kallol Bose, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, challenges the report, arguing that the relevant engineer was unable to physically examine the foundation of the building. He contends that the engineer’s opinion on the structural stability of the building should be disregarded. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to have the structural stability of the building re-examined by another specialist engineer at his own expense. However, Mr. 7 Kallol Bose, citing the petitioner’s financial constraints, declined to accept the proposal. A specialist engineer has already opined that the building is structurally stable. Moreover, it is important to note that the building was constructed in accordance with the agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 6 on August 30, 2022, as evidenced at page 47 of the writ petition. The report filed by the Municipality is clearly against the petitioner. The relevant part of the report is quoted below: “1. That the Private Respondents, Debraj Roy & Ors. firstly, have constructed one B+G+3 storied building at the western side of in terms of sanctioned Petitioner’s house building plan obtained through online Vide no. SWS-OBPAS/1607/2023/0315 on R.S. Plot no. 280(P) L.R. Plot no. 280(P), J.L. no. 171, Mouza Keranitola, Municipal Holding no. 705 in Ward no. 7 under Midnapore Municipality and as per the Agreement on 30.08.2022 executed (Annexure ’P-6’, Page no. 47-50 of the Writ Petition) by & between the Petitioner and the Private Respondents leaving 4 ft. open space from their boundary line.

2.That thereafter the Private Respondents got another sanctioned plan Vide P.W. no. 58 dated 14.03.2024 and in terms of said sanction plan they have constructed extending the above said building vertically up-to 5th floor. It is pertinent to mention here that said sanction was obtained by the Private Respondents on submission of necessary Certificates from the Architect, Structural Engineer and Geo- Technical Engineer in terms of Rule 53 of the West Bengal Municipal (Building) Rules, 2007. ……

7. That on 19.06.2024, the Officials & Staffs of Midnapore Municipality made spot inspection as per scheduled date & time. Though Private Respondents were present and showed their documents pertaining to their 8 building in question but the Petitioner was absent during inspection. It was found that the Private Respondents have constructed their building as per sanctioned building plans as described above and in terms of above said Agreement dated 30.08.2022 executed by & the Private between found that the Respondents. Petitioner himself has constructed 2 & 1‰ storied building over the common building wall without following the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 and the West Bengal Municipal (Building) Rules, 2007. the Petitioner and It was also …… 12. That the allegation as to making unauthorized construction of a B+G+5 storied building by the private respondents without obtaining sanctioned plan from Midnapore Municipality as contended by the petitioner at the time of hearing dated 07/10/2024 before this Hon’ble Court was in correct, baseless, frivolous and wrong.” This writ petition has been filed after the construction of the building was substantially completed. This Court was primarily concerned regarding the structural stability of the building. The building was constructed with a certificate from a structural engineer in terms of Rule 53 of the West Bengal Municipal (Building) Rules, 2007. Since the specialist engineer has again affirmed the building’s structural stability, no further interference warranted. In that view of the matter, WPA 15877 of 2024 along with CAN 2 of 2024 and CAN 4 of 2025, is disposed of. 9 Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Kausik Chanda, J.)