Repair Doesn’t Mean Rebuilding’: High Court Cracks Down on Illegal Construction

A dispute over construction at a Kolkata property has once again brought the distinction between legitimate repair work and unauthorised construction under the spotlight. The Calcutta High Court has taken a firm position against construction being carried out under the guise of repairs, directing the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to take steps to remove the unauthorised portion of the structure.

The case relates to a property at 14C, Bechu Chatterjee Street in Kolkata. The dispute is not a new one. According to the proceedings before the court, illegal construction had previously been carried out at the same premises and was demolished following the intervention of the High Court in 2017.

The matter returned to court after further construction took place at the property. This time, the private respondents had obtained a sanctioned building plan. However, the petitioner alleged that construction undertaken at the premises had resulted in the covering of a mandatory open space adjoining the neighbouring property.

The respondents, on the other hand, maintained that the construction was being carried out in accordance with the sanctioned plan. They acknowledged that an additional area of around 30 to 40 square feet had been constructed beyond the sanctioned plan and said that an application had been made to the municipal authorities seeking regularisation of the additional construction.

The Kolkata Municipal Corporation subsequently inspected the premises and found that the mandatory open space had been covered. Following the inspection, the civic body issued a stop-work notice under Section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, and the matter was also brought to the attention of the police.

The High Court took note of the history of the property while examining the latest dispute. Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that the private respondents appeared to have repeatedly undertaken unauthorised construction. The court noted that the earlier illegal construction had already been demolished following judicial intervention.

The court was particularly critical of the argument that the latest work was merely repair work. According to the order, the respondents had once again violated building rules and encroached upon the mandatory open space while claiming to undertake repairs.

Although an application for regularisation of the additional construction had been submitted to the municipal authorities, the court held that there was no scope for granting such regularisation in the circumstances, referring to the respondents as “habitual” offenders in the context of the construction violations.

The court consequently directed the municipal authorities to take action in accordance with law and ensure compliance with the applicable municipal rules. It further ordered that appropriate steps be initiated for removal of the unauthorised construction within 12 weeks from the date on which the order was communicated.

The ruling brings into focus an issue that is particularly relevant in a city like Kolkata, where ageing residential buildings frequently require repairs, restoration and structural maintenance. For property owners, repairing a damaged roof, wall or other portion of a building can be a genuine necessity. However, such work cannot automatically extend to creating additional space or altering a structure beyond what the sanctioned plan and building regulations permit.

The distinction is important because a repair does not necessarily mean that a property can be structurally altered at will. Once work goes beyond permissible maintenance and results in additional construction, changes to the sanctioned structure or occupation of an area required to remain open, it can attract municipal action.

Mandatory open spaces are also not simply unused portions of a property. Such spaces form part of the planning and building requirements intended to maintain adequate separation between structures and ensure compliance with prescribed norms. Covering such areas without permission can therefore affect not only the property where the construction is taking place but also neighbouring premises.

The case also highlights the limits of seeking regularisation after unauthorised construction has already taken place. While the respondents had approached the municipal authorities seeking approval for the additional area, the High Court did not consider regularisation appropriate in the circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the property’s previous history.

For homeowners, the ruling serves as a reminder that municipal approval matters before undertaking structural changes. What may appear to be a minor addition from inside a property can have implications under building regulations if it changes the sanctioned structure or affects areas that are required to remain open.

At the same time, the judgment does not mean that ordinary repairs to homes are prohibited. Maintaining an old building, fixing damage or making necessary repairs is different from carrying out additional construction without the required approval. The legal question lies in where that line is crossed.

The High Court’s latest direction therefore puts the emphasis back on compliance. A sanctioned plan cannot be treated as a starting point for further construction, nor can the word “repair” be used to justify work that effectively changes or expands a building beyond what has been permitted.

With the court directing the civic authorities to remove the unauthorised construction within the stipulated period, the case has once again underscored a simple but important principle for Kolkata’s property owners: repairing a home is one thing, building beyond the rules is another.