In a significant ruling that prioritizes public safety over protracted civil litigation, the Calcutta High Court has declared that civil disputes cannot stall the urgent renovation of a building officially declared 'dilapidated' or 'unsafe' by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC). The division bench delivered this verdict on December 23.
Court Prioritizes Risk to Life Over Property Dispute
The bench, comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya, was hearing a challenge to a trial court's decision. The lower court had vacated an ad-interim order that maintained the status quo on the property. This order was originally secured by a petitioner claiming a one-sixth share of the building in a civil suit.
The High Court firmly underscored the imminent danger. The judges ruled that the residents, tenants, neighbors, and even passers-by would be at "substantial risk" if the KMC's order to secure the building was not carried out promptly. This overriding concern for human safety formed the core of their decision.
Timeline of the Urgent Repair Order
The sequence of events highlights the urgency. The KMC had issued an order on February 2, 2022, directing the building owners to submit a renovation plan. The corporation had declared the structure so hazardous that it "may crumble down any day." Following this, the trial court's earlier status quo order was vacated, a move challenged before the division bench.
Representing the building owners, counsel argued forcefully about the "serious risk to life and limb" posed to occupants and people in the vicinity. They contended that the petitioner had not disclosed the critical KMC order to the trial court, which was the primary ground for vacating the interim relief.
Court's Directives for Joint or Solo Renovation
The High Court issued clear, time-bound instructions to break the deadlock. It directed both the building owners and the petitioner to apply jointly for a sanctioned renovation plan from the KMC within a fortnight. The corporation was instructed to process this application swiftly to facilitate joint construction.
However, anticipating continued discord, the bench provided a contingency. If the parties fail to file a joint application, the building owners are permitted to submit their own plan, which the KMC must then process. Crucially, the court clarified that undertaking this construction would not grant any party special equity or additional rights in the ongoing civil suit over ownership shares.
Broader Context of Kolkata's Unsafe Structures
This case sheds light on a larger civic issue in Kolkata. A KMC official provided context, stating, "We have listed 3,000-odd houses as insecure and asked the owners to repair or demolish the extremely insecure parts. At least 25% are listed as 'extremely hazardous' and need to be razed." This statistic underscores the scale of the problem and the critical need for timely action, often hindered by legal complexities.
The Calcutta High Court's judgment sets a vital precedent, establishing that when municipal authorities deem a structure dangerous, the imperative of protecting public life must take precedence, allowing essential repairs or demolition to proceed without being held hostage by parallel civil disputes.
