Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)
Ansar Ahmed & Ors vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors on 11 July, 2016 cites

Purti West Enclave Private Limited & Anr vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors on 31 March, 2016

The unreported decision of this Court in the case of Purti West Enclave Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. (W.P. No. 146 of 2010) decided on 31st March, 2016 is also very relevant to decide this case. The Court held that the statute gave finality to the decision of the Corporation, declaring buildings as heritage. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 did not provide a machinery to challenge this declaration. This Court was entitled to examine the correctness of this decision exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That jurisdiction was very limited. If on the face of the records the building did not show any characteristics so as to classify it as a heritage building, the Court could set aside the declaration of heritage status by the Corporation.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 8 - I P Mukerji - Full Document

Kamal Dey, Editor And Publisher Of Barta ... vs Director General, Archeological ... on 5 October, 2015

In my opinion, the division bench judgement of this court in Kamal Dey, Editor and Publisher Barta Nyay v. Director General, Archeological Survery of India, New Delhi (WP 27784 (w) of 2014) with Manturanjan Das v. State of West Bengal (W.P. No. 6773 (w) 2015) with Asish Das v. Registrar General (W.P. No. 7502 (w) 2015) with Partha Ghosh v. Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta (W.P. No. 213 of 2015) together with connected matters reported in 2016 (1) CHN (Cal) 329 is very important for disposal of this case. Whether the Calcutta High Court main building was heritage or not was in issue in that case. Four public interest writ applications were assigned to that bench. The grievance was against construction of the AC plant within this High Court for air-conditioning selected parts of it. Construction had been completed. The writ petitioners said that this project was against the law relating to preservation of heritage buildings. Now, by the above recommendation of the Heritage Conservation Committee, the High Court was included in this list of 828 buildings which were declared to be heritage. Mr. Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya delivering the judgement of the Bench expressed doubt whether the Corporation had applied its mind to the recommendation of the Heritage Committee.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1