Kolkata, Sep 8 The Calcutta High Court has upheld the three-month jail term imposed by a trial court on a developer for unauthorised construction of a multi-storey building, and observed that unlawful construction in a congested city like Kolkata is a direct assault on public safety and not merely a civil infraction of municipal rules.
Dismissing an appeal by the developer and the land owner, Justice Uday Kumar said that when developers and property owners choose to treat municipal sanction limits as mere suggestions rather than binding commands, the criminal law must step in to enforce discipline.
"Unauthorised and unlawful construction in a congested urban metropolis like Kolkata is not merely a civil infraction of municipal rules; it is a direct assault on public safety, civic infrastructure, and the collective right of citizens to live in a safe and regulated environment," the court observed in the judgment passed last week.
The court noted that the developer and the owner were raising an unauthorised four-storey (Ground+3) building at Dr Panchanan Mitra Lane in Beleghata area of east Kolkata in gross and flagrant deviation from the sanctioned building plan, which permitted construction strictly up to the first floor (G+1) due to the constraints of a narrow access passage.
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation authorities alleged that this unauthorised vertical expansion posed an imminent threat of structural collapse, endangering human life and severely disrupting water supply, drainage, sewerage, and road traffic, besides creating grave fire hazards.
A police complaint regarding this illegal construction was filed by February 2017 by the KMC authorities concerned.
The municipal magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta, found both petitioners guilty and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for three years each and a fine of Rs 50,000 each in March, 2019.
The aggrieved petitioners preferred an appeal before the City Sessions Court, Calcutta, which affirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence awarded by the municipal magistrate.
The city sessions court sentenced the developer to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs 50,000, while the owner was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court on that day and a fine of Rs 50,000.
The developer and the owner challenged their conviction and sentence before the high court.
Upholding the conviction and modification of sentence for each of the two appellants, the high court observed, "The physical reality of a towering illegal structure standing in a congested lane inherently creates the hazards contemplated by the legislature."
Justice Kumar held that the prosecution successfully established the foundational and core ingredients of the offense under provisions of the KMC Act beyond a shadow of doubt.
He observed that the appellate court rightly bifurcated culpability, recognising that commercial developers who flout building laws for profit must face strict deterrence.
Justice Kumar noted that the City Sessions Court showed "humane consideration" toward land owner Shukla Das on account of her age and status as a passive owner and reduced her sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court.
"I find no patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or gross miscarriage of justice warranting interference in this revisional jurisdiction," Justice Kumar said, dismissing the appeal.
He held that the appellate court correctly applied Supreme Court sentencing jurisprudence to balance deterrence and proportionality, bifurcating the culpability of a commercial developer from a passive owner.
