A Settled Building-Sanction Dispute Cannot Be Reopened Without Challenging the Completion Certificate.

The petitioner, a lessee of the back portion of Premises No. 16, Beniapukur Road, sought demolition of allegedly unauthorised construction on the adjacent premises. The property had been separated and renumbered, and a sanctioned building plan had been issued for the adjacent premises

Earlier proceedings concerning the plan and alleged unauthorised construction had resulted in orders by the Special Officer (Building), further municipal action, and subsequent High Court proceedings. The Court had ultimately directed the municipality to issue an occupancy certificate; a partial completion certificate was issued in 2014, and the premises are fully occupied

Whether the petitioner could reopen the settled issue concerning the sanctioned building plan and seek demolition in light of the criminal proceedings

Whether the writ petition should be entertained where the petitioner had no interest in the adjacent premises, the premises were occupied and covered by a completion certificate, and the petition did not seek recall of that certificate or the relevant earlier order

The judgment does not identify or apply any specific statute, precedent, or expressly formulated legal test.

The Court relied on the procedural history and its earlier orders concerning the building, including the order directing issuance of an occupancy certificate and the resulting completion certificate. It treated the accrued rights associated with the completion certificate, the petitioner’s lack of interest in the adjacent premises, the absence of a challenge to the certificate or earlier order, and the settled nature of the issue as reasons not to reopen the matter

The Court considered the criminal judgment but concluded that the petitioner was using it to reopen the grant of a plan for adjacent premises in which he had no interest. It also found that the petition did not challenge construction as contrary to building rules, but instead raised a dispute more akin to a title dispute

In light of the earlier proceedings, the issuance of the completion certificate, the premises’ full occupation, and the absence of a prayer to recall the certificate or the Court’s earlier order, the Court found no basis to reopen the settled issue

No demolition or other relief was granted