A general notice issued by the Corporation under Section 504 (c) of the Calcutta Municipal Act is not sufficient compliance with the requirement of Section 363 of the Act, which mandates the service of individual notices to the owner and occupiers before demolition proceedings can be initiated.

( 1 ) THESE are two Rules one taken out by Dr. Kartick Chandra Bose who is admittedly the owner of premises No. 45 Amherst Street, and the other taken out by seven other persons who claim to be occupiers of the same premises. The Rules are directed against an order, dated the 29th of June, 1951, passed by the Third Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta, whereby the learned Magistrate directed certain structures to be demolished.

( 2 ) IT appears that on the 22nd of March, 1949, the Corporation received a letter from one D. K. Dutt who is the owner of premises Nos. 128 and 130 Keshab Sen Street, Calcutta, and by that letter the said D. K. Dutt complained that certain unauthorised structures had been put up at 45, Amherst Street with the result that the access of light and air to the adjacent premises owned by him had been materially affected. Prior to the receipt of this letter, however, the unauthorised structures had already received the attention of the inspecting staff of the Corporation and on the 21st of March, 1949, they had already made a report that certain unauthorised structures, some of which were still in the process of construction, had been detected. Thereupon on the same day, that is to say, on the 21st of March, 1949, a notice under Section 365 of the Calcutta Municipal Act was served on the owner. A notice under Section 363 of the said Act appears subsequently to have been served on the 13th of June, 1949 and the matter came up for discussion at a meeting of the Building Committee held on the 14th of June. Apparently, the matter was adjourned on the 14th of June and final orders by the Administrative Officer were passed on the 25th July. By that order the Administrative Officer directed four of the unauthorised structures to be demolished within three months and added that if that direction was carried out, the proceedings would be withdrawn. The direction was not carried out and consequently proceedings were instituted in the court of the Municipal Magistrate on the 11th of July, 1950.

( 3 ) I may pause here to point out that although the order of the, Administrative Officer was passed on the 25th of July, 1949 and only three months time was given to the owner to carry out the directions which would give him time up to the 25th of October, yet the Corporation did not find it possible to institute any proceeding till after nine further months, I have had occasion to comment before on the degree of expedition with which the Corporation transacts public business and this is but another instance of its normal speed.

( 4 ) IT appears from the order sheet of the learned Municipal Magistrate that on the proceedings being instituted on the 11th July, 1950, he directed general and special notices to be given to the occupiers and to the owner respectively and he fixed the 29th of August, 1950 as the next date of hearing. The notices directed to be issued were notices under Sections 363 of the Act. On the 29th of August, 1950, the owner appeared through his son and, according to the order recorded by the learned Magistrate, on that date some occupiers also appeared. A prayer was made on behalf of the owner for an adjournment till after the Puja holidays in order that he might have sufficient time to file his written statement and, in accordance with that prayer, the case was adjourned till the 14th of November, 1950. More time passed and ultimately a written statement on behalf of the owner was filed on the 3rd of January 1951, but the occupiers seem to have taken no further part in the proceedings. In due course, the parties before the learned Magistrate led evidence; the owner examined his son, whereas the Corporation examined the complainant D. K. Dutt and its building inspector. The learned Magistrate held that the structures were, in fact, unauthorised, as alleged, and that there had been infringements of the building rules. Accordingly, he directed the owner to demolish the same four structures tha