IMPORTANT POINT
The decision to declare a property as a heritage building must be based on authentic and tangible evidence, and the property owner's rights should not be violated without justifiable reasons.

JUDGMENT :

RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.

1. The two writ petitions being No. WPO 120 of 2021 and WPO 121 of 2021, have been heard together and are being adjudicated and disposed of, by dint of this common judgment.

2. The writ petitioners are aggrieved, due to divergent decisions taken by the Heritage Commission and the respondent/Kolkata Municipal Corporation, in the matter of declaration of their residence, i.e. 20B, Karl Marx Sarani, as a heritage building. Their further grievance is that, in spite of the Heritage Commission having held such declaration not to be maintainable due to want of adequate evidence, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation subsequently determines the same otherwise, in consonance with its earlier decision. The end result is that the residence of the writ petitioners finds place in the ‘Graded List’ of heritage buildings, of the respondent/Kolkata Municipal Corporation, against which the petitioners seek relief that the same may be decategorised and delisted, from there. They have sought that the decision of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, declaring the said premises, as heritage, be set aside. Hence, these writ petitions.

(i) Factual background of the case:

3. The building 20B Karl Marx Sarani, is an old building. The writ petitioners have stated on oath that no property related document with respect to the said premises is available with the respondent Corporation, prior to the year 1875. They have stated the same on the basis of the information furnished to them by the Superintendent of Records, Central Records Department of the respondent Corporation, vide letter dated 22/11/1990 [Paragraph 9 of the writ petition and Annexure ‘P-2’]. This being a matter of records, the same appears to have been accepted by the respondent Corporation [vide paragraph 8 of the affidavit-in-opposition].

(ii) How the property devolved upon the writ petitioners:

4. The writ petitioners have relied on five deeds of conveyance executed on 04/01/1990, to state that by dint of the said five deeds of conveyance the respective owners of the property situated at 20B Karl Marx Sarani, sold and transferred the absolute right and title interest with respect to the said property, in favour of the predecessors of the writ petitioners and the other co-owners of them.

(iii) Mutation after purchase:

5. The writ petitioner’s application for mutation of the said property after purchase, was however rejected by the respondent Corporation, vide a letter dated 18/02/1991, on the ground that the same could not be mutated, the premises being under acquisition by the State Government for public purpose.

6. The writ petitioners have stated regarding an order of the civil Court dated 16/05/1991, by dint of which, they say that the respondent Corporation (defendant in that civil suit being Title Suit No 190 of 1991, before the 5th Court of Munsif at Alipore) was directed to record the transfer of title in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs, that is the predecessors of the writ petitioners, in the municipal assessment book and the appropriate books lying in the office of the municipality (respondent Corporation). It is stated that the respondent Corporation was also directed to sanction building plan for construction of the building by the writ petitioners after mutating the names of the writ petitioners with respect to the said property.

7. The writ petitioners have mentioned about a letter dated 20/05/1999, issued to them by the respondent Corporation, informing the fact that the names of the writ petitioners have been mutated with respect to the said concerned premises, with effect from 11/05/1999. Mutation certificate dated 28/05/1999, was issued.

8. Within a very short span of time, another letter dated 23/09/1999 was received by the writ petitioners, from the Assistant Assessor, Assessment Department of the respondent Corporation. By dint of the same the writ petitioners were informed that mutation of their names with respect to the said p