The court ruled that the petitioners failed to prove ownership rights over the disputed land, emphasizing that possession without legal title is insufficient for asserting rights.

JUDGMENT :

Apurba Sinha Ray, J.

Factual matrix

1. The original owner, Bikas Sinha, of the premises no. 227 Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata let out the premises on long lease to one Smt. Sarojini Goswami in 1974.The lessee filed returns under the Urban Land Ceiling Act (in short ULC Act) and subsequently, it was found that there was excess vacant land to the extent of 1079 square metres. On an application being made by Smt. Goswami, exemption was allowed to the extent of 379 square metres and permission was granted by ULC Department to make construction on the premises without touching 700 square metres of land abutting Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road which was earmarked for acquisition by the Government of West Bengal. The original owner sold the said premises to Jenny Christiansen (SA) Private Limited and Smt. Goswami surrendered the lease. Jenny constructed a multi-storied B+G+5 building and flats were sold to different persons. An Association was formed to protect and promote the rights and interest of the flat owners of the said building. The Association claimed that 700 square meters of disputed land forms a part and parcel of the premises number 227 AJC Bose Road Kolkata and when the building plan was sanctioned by KMC for construction of the multi-storied building the disputed land was shown as car parking space for the residents of the multi-storied building. The competent authority under the ULC Act finally held that there was no excess vacant land in the said premises and dropped the acquisition proceedings. Subsequently in 2008, City Enclave, the respondent no. 6, purchased 700 square meters of land from Jenny which was demarcated by constructing a boundary wall from the parent premises and the same was mutated and renumbered as 227A AJC Bose Road Kolkata. The Association made a representation to KMC complaining that the boundary wall was being constructed illegally, and receiving no response from KMC, the Association approached a learned Judge of this Court by filing WP no. 622 of 2003. During the hearing of the writ petition, the KMC submitted that it was taking steps and a demolition case would be instituted in respect of the impugned boundary wall. On the basis of such submission the learned Judge disposed of the writ petition.

2. A demolition case was initiated in respect of the concerned boundary wall before the Special Officer (Buildings), KMC and the same was ultimately dismissed. It was held therein that the disputed land was not part of premises no. 227 and the Association cannot object to the construction of the boundary wall. Statutory appeal was filed before the Municipal Building Tribunal (MBT in short). It was argued on behalf of the Association that in the building plan sanctioned by KMC for construction of the building at premises number 227 of Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road the relevant space measuring 700 sq. meters was shown as car parking space for the residents of the building. In this regard, the Association relied on an affidavit of KMC filed in connection with Writ Petition No. 622 of 2003.The MBT held that the disputed land could not have been shown as car parking space at the relevant time since at that time the land was under acquisition process of the ULC department and that was under the Department’s possession. The Association challenged such order of the MBT by filing WPO no. 492 of 2017, and the Writ Petition no 992 of 2015 was filed by Ass