The main legal point established in the judgment is that construction on defence land is entitled to immunity from the provisions of the local municipal laws, as per the Government Buildings Act, 1899.

Debangsu Basak, J.

1. A letter dated February 12, 2016 issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, a letter dated August 10, 2016 issued by the Officer-in-Charge, Alipore Police Station and a notice under Section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, dated August 11, 2016 are under challenge in the present writ petition at the behest of the Union of India.

2. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing in support of the petition submits that, the defence was constructing a building for office and residential purposes on a plot of land belonging to the defence. He draws the attention of the Court to two documents at pages 31 and 32 of the writ petition and submits that, the land, in question, was initially under the management of the Quarter Master General and, subsequently, taken over by the Director General of Defence Estates. The land continues to remain with the defence. The defence being the owner of the land, it was entitled to make a construction on such land. He relies upon the provisions of the Government Building Act, 1899 and submits that, since the land, in question, is of the defence and construction undertaken therein is by the defence, the petitioner enjoys the right to make a construction thereat without reference to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. He submits that, the building undertaken to be constructed at the land concerned is not governed by the provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and the Building Rules framed thereunder. In support of his contention that, Government and defence land is governed by the provisions of the Act of 1899, he relies upon 2016(1) CHN (Cal) 329 (Kamal Dey v. Archeological Survey of India)

3. Learned Additional Solicitor General refers to the correspondence exchanged on behalf of the petition or, the State and the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. He refers to a letter dated March 28, 2014 by which the Ministry of Defence had intimated the Director General of Defence Estates about the permission being accorded by the President of India for making construction by incurring the expenditure as allocated. He submits that, the Defence Estates Officer by a writing dated November 10, 2014 had sought permission from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for felling and disposal of seventeen numbers of trees at the plot of land in question. Kolkata Municipal Corporation had granted such permission by a writing dated December 4, 2014. He refers to the letter dated February 12, 2016 by which the Kolkata Municipal Corporation raised an issue as to security threat to Presidency Correctional Home in respect of the construction at the land concerned. He submits that, Kolkata Municipal Corporation by such writing had required the petitioner to stop the construction, till the petitioner obtained a No Objection Certificate from the Directorate of the Correctional Home Services, Government of West Bengal. According to him, Kolkata Municipal Corporation does not have any jurisdiction to require the petitioner to obtain such no objection or to direct the petitioner to stop work on the plea of security threat to the Correctional Home. By a letter dated February 22, 2016, the petitioner had raised objections with regard to the stand taken by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The petitioner had received a writing dated August 10, 2016 from the Officer-in-Charge of Alipore Police Station stating that, the construction undertaken by the petitioner was without obtaining the No Objection Certificate from the Directorate of the Correctional Home Services. He submits that, thereafter, the corporation authorities had issued a notice under Section 401 of the Act of 1980. According to him, neither the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station nor Kolkata Municipal Corporation has the jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to stop the construction on the plea of security threat or otherwise. He submits that, the petitioner had by a writing dated August 10, 2016 deman