The court emphasized the importance of considering essential jurisdictional facts and the authority of representatives in matters of regularization of construction and change of user.

1. This writ petition is technically defective so far as Rule 8B and Rule 9 of the Rules of this Court relating to applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are concerned.

2. Nonetheless the matter is taken up for hearing on merits because the learned advocate who is on record and is a senior member of the Bar assures me that it will not happen again. He is led by Learned Counsel.

3. The writ petitioner is a co-owner of a certain property along with the non-State Respondents No. 11 to 25. This property was contracted to be developed through the non-State Respondents No. 8 to 10. As is usual, under such circumstances, all the co-owners had executed the power of attorney in favour of the non-State Respondent No.8 to 10. The power of attorney was executed on November 29, 2010. A plan for building was sanctioned by the Respondent Kolkata Municipal Corporation on the basis of such power of attorney. Such plan was sanctioned on June 14, 2011 pursuant to amalgamation of the premises. At paragraph 23, the writ petitioner has alleged that after the execution of the power of attorney two of the co-owners died. The dates of their deaths have not been mentioned in the writ petition and no death certificate has been annexed to the writ petition. The power of attorney was alleged to have been cancelled by the writ petitioner on June 10, 2013 by a registered Instrument and such revocation was duly notified on July 1, 2013 in an English daily and a vernacular daily newspaper, having wide circulation in Kolkata.

4. Therefore, it is the case of the writ petitioner that despite sanction of the building plan on the basis of the power of attorney aforesaid, two of the executants/donors of the power of attorney, being co-owners, died, and the said power of attorney was no longer valid so far as the right of the non-State Respondent Nos. 8 to 10 to represent all the co-owners of the premises is concerned.

5. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that there was deviation from the sanctioned building plan and for this the building constructed at the said premises was liable to be demolished.

6. On the contrary, Mr. Swapan Mitra along with Mr. Bratin Kumar Dey, learned advocates appearing for the non-State respondent strenuously submit that the death of one of the co-owners who has a miniscule percentage as a co-sharer in the entire property cannot prevent the rest of the co-owners from taking steps to acquire their property. He submits that had the property been partitioned by metes and bounds, the said writ petitioner would not have had more than 70 to 80 square meters out of the premises measuring 2 cottahs and 1 chittak. He further submits that so far as the death of the two co-owners are concerned they would have no effect on the right of all the co-owners to continue to represent themselves through the private respondents, if necessary, by giving a separate letter which would allow them to be represented before the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for the limited extent of praying for regularization which he submits is covered under Rule 28 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules, instead of demolition of the building sought by the writ petitioner in terms of Section 400 sub-Section (1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.

7. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation submits that the regularization was made on merits instead of going on technicalities considering that the majority of the co-sharers were willing to be represented by the promoters and the promoters were the person responsible for carrying out the construction. He also submits that the amount of deviation was only 80 square feet on the ground floor and had the same been part of the plan submitted for sanction, the law would have permitted the plan to be sanctioned with such deviation. He also submits that the Respondent Corporation allowed the change of user in its discretion since it was a chang