Calcutta High Court
Moni Mohan Dutta & Ors vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors on 10 November, 2016
Author: I.P.Mukerji
Bench: I. P. Mukerji
WP No.967 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
MONI MOHAN DUTTA & ORS.
Versus
THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI
Date : 10th November, 2016.
Appearance:
Mr. R.Chatterjee, Advocate
Mr. P.Dey, Advocate
Mr. A.Dey, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. S.Mondal, Advocate
Mr. S.Chowdhury, Advocate
for respondent Nos.1 to 4
Ms. S.Majumdar, Advocate Ms. D.Sen, Advocate for respondent No.5 Mr. A.K.Ghosh, Advocate Mr. S.Chakraborty, Advocate for private respondents The Court: The order which I now pass in this new writ can be taken to be as one for implementation of the order dated 12th July 2016 disposing of an earlier writ, (WP No.673 of 2016 Moni Mohan Dutta & Ors. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.).
2
The respondent developer, it seems, has already submitted a plan to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, for sanction, ostensibly, in furtherance of the said order. While Mr. Ghosh for the owner developer submits that this plan is for full-scale development of the property by rebuilding it, Mr. Chatterjee for the petitioners says that on examination of the plan it appears that it is only for repair and renovation of the building. Hence his clients be permitted to remain possessed of their respective areas of occupation.
At this point of time, considering all circumstances it would be prudent to accept the version of Mr. Ghosh and treat the proposed building plan as one for large scale rebuilding of the property.
In those circumstances, how can the respective interests of the parties be preserved in terms of the order dated 12th July 2016 ?
For the time being, the petitioners will be entitled to remain in possession of the respective areas and no further building or construction work is to be carried out unless and until the conditions mentioned herein below are fulfilled.
The writ petitioners have been shown alternative accommodation behind the property in question. Mr. Ghosh submits that this accommodation has been earmarked for them. They will satisfy themselves with regard to the accommodation and the nature of occupancy they are being offered. Once they are so satisfied, they will express their willingness to shift to the new accommodation.
Concurrently an agreement will be executed between the petitioners and the owner developer with regard to the accommodation which each of the petitioners will ultimately be given in the building after it is rebuilt together with a time frame within which the construction has to be commenced, completed and possession thereof handed over to each of the 3 petitioners. This agreement will have to be duly registered. The petitioners will be provided areas in the new building as indicated in a table set out below :
Shop Name of tenant Area occupied by Area proposed in No. Physical possession Sanctioned plan.
(Sq m) (Sq m)
1 Moni Mohan Dutta 2.10x8.10=17.01 2.10x8.10=17.01
2 Gouri Basak, Avijit 1.83x8.10=14.823 1.83x8.10=14.823
Basak & Saswati
Bhoumick
3 Samit Talukdar, 2.2x8.10=17.82 2.2x8.10=17.82
Pramit Talukdar &
Ramit Talukdar
4 Sankar Samanta 4.6x8.10=37.26 4.6x8.10=37.26
5 Thakur Prasad Dhar 2.165x8.10=17.563 2.165x8.10=17.563
There should be a proper plan annexed to the said agreement. Upon completion of the new building and obtainment of the occupancy certificate, the petitioners should be rehabilitated in the above areas of it.
I make it clear that all these facts, figures and conditions should be contained in the agreement along with the usual covenants. The petitioners will shift to the alternative accommodation immediately on execution and registration of the above agreement.
There should be a default clause that in case the said respondent is unable to hand over possession of the specified areas to the petitioners or any of them, he or they will have a charge over that area like a mortgagee. He or they will be entitled to sell those portions and realise the value thereof.
The above exercise should be undertaken under the supervision of the Joint Special Officers appointed by this Court. Mr. R.N.Bandopadhyay, Advocate, Bar Association Room No.1 (Ex Joint Secretary, Ministry of Law 4 Kolkata) and Mrs. Shanti Das, Ex State Government Advocate, Bar Association, are appointed as Joint Special Officers at an initial remuneration of 1500 GMs and 900 GMs respectively to be paid by the respondent No.6 to supervise and implement the provisions of this order. All disputes between the parties are to be referred to and resolved by the Joint Special Officers. The parties will be bound by such decision. The Joint Special Officers will also supervise the construction of the building. All objections and suggestions may be put forward before them which they will deal with immediately. Such decision will also be binding upon the parries.
List this application once again in the monthly list of June 2017 to review the progress made and for grant of further remuneration to the Joint Special Officers. Liberty to apply for implementation of this order read with the order dated 12th July 2016.
Certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(I.P.MUKERJI, J.) G/