JUDGMENT :

(Amrita Sinha, J.) :

1. The order passed by the learned Municipal Building Tribunal, Kolkata Municipal Corporation on 31st August, 2022 in BT Appeal No. 102 of 2022 in not admitting the petitioner’s appeal on the ground of delay is impugned in the present writ petition.

2. Bare facts of the case sans unnecessary details are as follows:

The petitioner lodged a complaint alleging unauthorized construction against the private respondent at premises no. 1582, Anandapur Road, Madurdaha, East Kolkata Township within jurisdiction of Kolkata Municipal Corporation (‘KMC’ for short).

3. The petitioner claims that KMC sanctioned building plan for construction of G+3 storied building at the subject premises. Petitioner, a non resident Indian, is the owner of two self contained residential flats along with two car parking spaces at the said premises. His family members reside there.

4. Sometime in September/October 2013 the petitioner came to learn that unauthorized construction of additional one and half floor on the roof top of the building at the subject premises was being constructed. He lodged complaint before the authorities. As no response was received by him, he made repeated reminders to KMC to take steps for demolition of the unauthorized construction. Before any steps were taken by the authorities, illegal construction was complete.

5. Later on in the year 2017-18 the petitioner came to learn that a demolition proceeding against such unauthorised construction was initiated and the Deputy Chief Engineer (Building)/ South considered and disposed of the demolition case in connection with the said premises and the person responsible for making such construction was allowed to retain the unauthorized construction subject to compliance of certain formalities.

6. The said officer recorded in the order dated 31st January, 2014 that the illegality was noticed during departmental inspection. There was no complaint from the neighbourhood and none ventilated any grievance for construction of building. Accordingly, the prayer for retention of the unauthorized construction stood allowed subject to the conditions mentioned therein.

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Special Officer the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being WP No. 16846 (W) of 2017. The Court after noticing that the order for retention is an appealable one, was pleased to dispose of the writ petition by order dated 22nd June, 2018 by granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer appeal within a fortnight and the appellate authority was requested to consider such appeal to be within the period of limitation for preferring the appeal. The Court directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.

8. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single judge, the petitioner filed a review petition before the learned single judge being RVW No. 100 of 2018. The said review petition was dismissed by the Court on 31st August, 2018.

9. Challenging the order passed in review the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court being MAT 1261 of 2018, CAN 1207 of 2019, RVW 100 of 2018 arising out of WP 16846 (W) of 2017. The aforesaid appeal stood dismissed by the Court on 2nd July, 2019.

10. After dismissal of the appeal the petitioner preferred the statutory appeal against the order of demolition passed by the Special Officer (Building) on 31st January, 2014 being BT Appeal No. 102 of 2022. The statutory appeal was not admitted by the building Tribunal on the ground of delay and the appeal stood disposed of by order dated 31st August, 2022.

11. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same and has challenged the same in the present writ petition.

12. It has been submitted that there has been no intentional and wilful delay or laches on the part of the petitioner in pursuing his rights. The petitioner is fighting for his rights from 2013. As the petitioner is a non resident Indian it is not poss