Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Bimal Dey vs The State Of West Bengal & Others on 24 September, 2014

Author: I.P.Mukerji

Bench: I. P. Mukerji

                        WP No.857 of 2014
                IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                  Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                         ORIGINAL SIDE


                         BIMAL DEY
                           Versus
            THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS


BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI

Date : 24th September, 2014.


                               Appearance:

                               Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, Advocate
                               Mr. C.R.Das, Advocate
                               for the petitioner

                               Mr. Amber Nath Banerjee, Advocate
                               Mr. Gopal Chandra Das, Advocate
                               Mr. Debangshu Mondal, Advocate
                               for Kolkata Municipal Corporation

                               Mr. Debdut Mukherjee, Advocate
                               for the State

                               Mr. Subrata Goswami, Advocate
                               for respondent No.3

The Court: The premises involved are 31/1A and 31/1B Nayan Chand Dutta Street, Kolkata 700 006.

The writ application is filed by a constituted attorney with a power to sue on behalf of the donor of the power.

On 10th January, 2013 there was a demolition order issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation with regard to a part of that building which was stated to be dangerous. I am told today that this part has been demolished in compliance with that order.

Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner, argues that his client is the owner of the building and is desirous of entering into 2 a development agreement with a developer. This would involve demolishing the balance part of the structure.

At this stage, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation intervenes. They say that this building has now been proposed to be declared as a heritage building and no such work should be carried out.

From the arguments it appears that there is only a proposal to consider grading this building as a heritage building and nothing more.

There is much substance in the contention of Mr. Mukherjee that when part of the building was demolished by Kolkata Municipal Corporation, another part of it cannot be declared as a heritage building. If it was the intention of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to declare the building as such, they ought not to have taken the task of part demolition.

Be that as it may, Section 425B of Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 vests the Corporation with the power to declare a building as a heritage building. It can only be done only on the recommendation of the Heritage Conservation Committee and the Mayor in Council.

In those circumstances, it is better if an opportunity is given to these bodies to consider whether the building is to be declared as heritage building, within a limited period of time. Depending on the decision, the work contemplated by the petitioner can proceed.

This writ application is disposed of by directing the Corporation to exercise its power under Section 425B by 31st October, 2014, by a reasoned decision and communicate the same to the petitioner. 3

I make it clear that if no decision is taken by 31st October, 2014, the petitioner can go ahead with the proposed development of the premises.

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/