Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. In the notes of argument submitted before the learned Single Judge, Anandalok admitted that it had no private right in respect of 700 sq. meters.

13. Admittedly, Anadalok has put water pipelines under the disputed land and sunk deep tube wells thereat. There is no dispute regarding title of the said land as the land belongs to City Enclave. Anandalok has to undo the wrong of installing water pipelines beneath the said land.

14. Drawing attention to page 139 of APO 28/2022, learned Senior Counsel argued that the writ petition filed by the Association was not on behalf of the members nor the same was filed in a representative capacity, and therefore, Anandalok has no locus to file the same. It does not own any flat nor the said 700 sq. meters of land. In this regard, learned Single Judge's observation in CO No. 3384 of 2019 ( page 753 of APO 28, para 52) was referred to wherein it was stated that purchase deed was not challenged by Anadalok, and therefore, if the Anadalok has no legal right , no proceeding is legally maintainable. Entire purchase deed has to be accepted, not a part of it.

27. Learned Counsel further submitted that the appellants' acts of fabrication of documents were found at least on three occasions. Firstly, from the certified copy of conveyance and the plan it is found that the plan was sanctioned in 1986 and the building was purely residential whereas the plan submitted by the appellants show that it was commercial. Secondly, the plan produced by the appellants show B+G+7 storied building but it was actually B+G+5. Moreover in Title Suit 2313 of 2008 at Alipore Court the appellants admitted in the plaint that 700 sq. meters of land were under acquisition process. In APO 28/2022 vol.4 pg 345 (stay petition), para 5, the appellants admitted that the proposed building was of 5 floors. Thirdly, the claim of the appellants regarding car parking on open space is belied by the Executive Engineer's report dated 15/02/2010 (APO 28/2022 vol.5 pg 524 ).

" Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Nirmalya Dasgupta, learned advocate, concludes argument on behalf of the appellants.

Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent no.6 in APO/28/2022 & APO/29/2022, begins his argument but does not conclude.

We record such submission.

Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, learned Senior Advocate representing the respondent no.6 in APO/28/2022 & APO/29/2022, resumes his argument but does not conclude.

List these matters once again on May 4, 2023, for further hearing."

53. Without giving importance to such direction, the appellants insisted that original of the sanction plan should be produced from the central records of KMC. The appellants did not give any credence to the certified copy of the plan produced from the side of the KMC after being certified by the Executive Engineer (Civil) on the ground that it is not the Executive Engineer but the municipal commissioner of KMC who is the custodian of all documents and therefore production of copy of the sanction plan certified by the Executive Engineer is bad in law.