Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side
I.P. MUKERJI, J.
Purti West Enclave Private Limited & Anr. – Appellant
Vs.
Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. – Respondents
W.P. No. 146 OF 2010
Decided on : 31-03-2016
HERITAGE BUILDING - 22 PARK STREET, KOLKATA - DECLARATION AS HERITAGE BUILDING - VALIDITY - KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1980 (AMENDED IN 1997) - SECTIONS 425A, 425B, 425D, 425-O - EXPERT COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED ON 6TH OCTOBER, 1997 - RECOMMENDATIONS - VALIDITY - HERITAGE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER AMENDED ACT - ENDORSEMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS - VALIDITY - JUDICIAL SCRUTINY - SCOPE - COURT'S POWER TO DECLARE ERRONEOUS CLASSIFICATION - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN DECLARING A BUILDING AS HERITAGE - REASONING PROVIDED BY COMMITTEE - SUFFICIENCY - DECLARATION OF 22 PARK STREET AS HERITAGE BUILDING AND ITS CLASSIFICATION AS GRADE-I - SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act was amended in 1997, introducing various provisions related to heritage buildings. An Expert Committee was constituted to identify heritage buildings and made recommendations, including declaring 22 Park Street as a heritage building due to its architectural style. The Heritage Conservation Committee constituted under the amended Act endorsed the recommendations, and the Municipal Corporation approved them. The petitioner, who leased the property, challenged the declaration, arguing that the Expert Committee was not properly constituted and that the Heritage Conservation Committee and Mayor-in-Council merely rubber-stamped the recommendations without applying their minds.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the declaration of 22 Park Street as a heritage building was invalid for the following reasons: * The Expert Committee was constituted before the amended Act came into force, and its recommendations were not made under the amended Act. * The Heritage Conservation Committee and Mayor-in-Council merely endorsed the recommendations of the Expert Committee without applying their minds. * The reason provided for declaring the building as heritage, that part of the building extends over portico, arcuated, was insufficient and did not demonstrate the building's historical or architectural significance.
Issues: 1. Whether the Expert Committee constituted on 6th October, 1997, was properly constituted and its recommendations were valid. 2. Whether the Heritage Conservation Committee and Mayor-in-Council properly endorsed the recommendations of the Expert Committee. 3. Whether the declaration of 22 Park Street as a heritage building was valid, considering the reasons provided by the committee.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Expert Committee was not properly constituted as per the requirements of the amended Act and its recommendations were not made under the amended Act. 2. The court held that the Heritage Conservation Committee and Mayor-in-Council merely endorsed the recommendations of the Expert Committee without applying their minds and did not consider the relevant factors in declaring a building as heritage. 3. The court held that the reason provided for declaring 22 Park Street as a heritage building, that part of the building extends over portico, arcuated, was insufficient and did not demonstrate the building's historical or architectural significance.
Final Decision: The court set aside the declaration of 22 Park Street as a heritage building and its classification as Grade-I.
1. On 6th October, 1997, the Government of West Bengal constituted an Expert Committee to identify heritage buildings in the Kolkata Municipal Corporation area. With effect, from 22nd December, 1997, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act was amended by adding various sub-Sections to Section 425.
2. Now, certain provisions, newly introduced by amendment are of great significance. The Heritage Committee was to have a specific constitution. This committee would make a recommendation, identifying heritage buildings to the Mayor-in-Council, under Section 425B. The Mayor-in-Council was required to examine the recommendation. If it agreed with the recommendation made by the Heritage Committee it would refer the matter to the Corporation for final approval.
3. Declaration of a building as heritage has a great impact on its owner. Under Section 425A he cannot change the use of the building. He has to “maintain, preserve and conserve it”. This obligation is attached to each and every subsequent owner of the building. Therefore it is just not possible to sell or otherwise transfer the heritage building, easily.
4. In September, 1998 this Expert Committee submitted its final report to the government. In the report, premises No. 22 Park Street was included in a list of Heritage Buildings, appended to it. Incidentally, our High Court was also included in that list. The reason why 22 Park Street was recommended to be declared as a heritage building is very shortly stated against serial no.130 of the appendix to the report dealing with buildings according to their architecture. It is this: “part of the building extends over portico, arcuated, two floors”. The recommendations that were made by the Expert Committee were to be sent to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for consideration, in view of the 1997 amendment. This was decided in a high level meeting held on 1st December, 1998.
5. On 17th April, 2000 the Heritage Committee constituted under the amended provisions recommended 828 building to be heritage. On 5th May, 2000 the Mayor-in-Council accepted this recommendation. On 21st September, 2000 the recommendation of the Mayor-in-Council was approved in the Municipal Corporation meeting. On 3rd October, 2000 the heritage conservation committee recommended a further 520 buildings to be heritage. On 19th January, 2001 the Mayor-in-Council accepted the recommendation. On 20th February, 2001 the recommendation of the Mayor-in-Council was approved in the Municipal Corporation meeting.
6. All these buildings were included in the report of the Expert Committee.
7. On 30th August, 2001 the Municipal Commissioner informed the Official Receiver, in whose charge was 22 Park Street that the building had been declared a Heritage Building and that before undertaking any addition, alteration, modification or development thereof the same may be intimated to the Chief Municipal Architect and Town Planner for getting the clearance of the Heritage Conservation Committee. From the records one finds a letter dated 8th April, 2008 of the Municipal Corporation with a copy to the Official Receiver stating that the said premises had been declared as a Heritage Building.
8. It seems that a Heritage Conservation Committee was in existence before amendment of the said Act in 1997 and it took a resolution on 23rd June, 2006, approved by the Mayor-in-Council on 30th June, 2006, making a gradation of Heritage Buildings in to Grade-I Grade-IIA Grade-IIB. On 12th January, 2009 the Heritage Conservation Committee constituted under the amended Act accepted this resolution. On 22nd January, 2009 the Mayor-in-Council accepted it. On 25th February, 2009 the recommendation of the Mayor-in-Council dated 22nd January, 2009 was approved at the Municipal Corporation meeting.
9. Now, the said premises no. 22 Park Street, Kolkata -16 belongs to the estate of Sm. Goulup Dassi. It is a debutter property and was under the Official Receiver, High court. He published the terms and condit
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
