JUDGMENT

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.: - Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The appeal is preferred by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissing F.M.A.T. No. 1718 of 1992 which was directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents. The matter pertains to the grant of permission for construction of a multi-storeyed building in the South Suburban area of Calcutta.

3. Until January 4, 1984, the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 governed the area then comprised in Calcutta Municipality. the South Suburban area, with which we are concerned herein, was not a part of Calcutta Municipal Corporation area until that date. It was an independent municipality, governed by the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. On January 4, 1984, the South Suburban municipal area along with certain other municipal areas was merged with the Calcutta Municipal Corporation area and a new Act viz., The Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 was brought into force in place of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1951. Even so, the new Act governed and applied only to the original Calcutta Municipal Corporation area but not to the newly added areas including the South Suburban area. Since regulations governing the construction of buildings were not framed under the 1980 Act, the regulations made under the 1951 Act continued to govern the original Calcutta Municipal area, while the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 including the regulations made thereunder continued to govern the newly added areas including South Suburban area, by virtue of Section 635(ii)(g) of the 1980 Act.

4. On February 20, 1989, the Bengal Municipal Act and the rules made thereunder ceased to apply to the newly added areas by virtue of an amendment to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The 1980 Act was extended to the said newly added areas with effect from the said date. (This was the effect of omission of clause (g) of Sec. 635(ii) with effect from the said date.) On 12th December, 1990, new building rules were issued under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.

5. The respondents-writ petitioners entered into an agreement with the owner of the site concerned herein, Sri D.R.K. Karnani, to purchase the same. They say that, at their instance, Sri Karnani applied to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation for permission to construct a multi-storeyed complex on the said site, which is situated within the erstwhile South Suburban Municipal area. On April 27, 1985, the Municipal Corporation sanctioned the plan for the construction of a eight storeyed building. This sanction, it is obvious, was given under and governed by the provisions of Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 and the regulations made thereunder, which were in force in the said area at that time. However, no construction was made - not even commenced - within two years of the permission, with the result that the said permission became ineffective inoperative on the expiry of the said period.

6. On February 2, 1987, i.e. within the said two years period, the respondents applied for sanction of a revised building plan with eight stories but with a changed layout. On April 16, 1987, the respondents applied for renewal of the sanctioned plan dated April 27, 1985, without withdrawing the application for the revised plan submitted on February 15, 1987.

7. In August 24, 1987 the respondents applied for permission to construct a building comprising of twelve floors on the basis of a new plan. No orders were passed by the corporation authorities on any of these three applications within thirty days of their respective submission. On this basis, the respondents say and assert that the permission applied for by them on August 24, 1987 must be deemed to have been sanctioned on the expiry of thirty days by virtue of the Section 319 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. (The Municipal Corporation, however says tha