IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ARIJIT BANERJEE, APURBA SINHA RAY, JJ.
Chandra Udyog & Another - Appellants
Versus
Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Others - Respondents
APO No. 86 of 2023 With WPO No. 2257 of 2022, IA NO. GA 1 of 2023, IA No. GA 2 of 2023
Decided On : 29-08-2024
Heritage - Property Rights - Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 - Sections 2(42A), 425B, 425C, 425D, 425O - The court examined the statutory framework for declaring buildings as heritage properties, emphasizing the need for compliance with procedural mandates and the rights of property owners under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, owners of a dilapidated building in Kolkata, challenged its designation as a heritage property by the KMC, claiming it was illegal and sought permission for demolition and new construction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the KMC's designation of the building as heritage was procedurally valid and that the appellants had delayed their challenge, thus remanding the matter to KMC for a decision on the demolition request.
Issues: Whether the KMC's designation of the building as a heritage property was valid and whether the appellants were entitled to demolish the building.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the KMC followed the necessary statutory procedures in designating the building as heritage and that the appellants' delay in challenging this designation affected their claim.
Result: The appeal was disposed of, directing KMC to consider the appellants' representation regarding demolition.
JUDGMENT :
Arijit Banerjee, J.
1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated May 12, 2023, whereby the appellants’ writ petition being WPO 2257 of 2022 was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court.
2. The appellants are the owners of premises No. 2 Camac Street (Abanindranath Thakur Sarani), Kolkata- 700 016 (in short ‘the said premises’). There are two buildings at the said premises. One is the main building which is a three storeyed structure (in short ‘the said building’). The other is an annexe building which is also three-storeyed. The buildings are very old and are said to have been built more than 90 years ago.
3. The case of the appellants/writ petitioners is that sometime in May, 2006, for the first time they discovered from newspaper reports, that the said building has been included in the list of heritage properties prepared by Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short ‘KMC’) under Grade - IIA. The appellants objected to recording of the said building as heritage. They say that they were given to understand by the KMC authorities that on properties categorised as Grade - IIA heritage, the owner may be permitted to make new construction on the open land within the premises, in a compatible manner with the heritage building. However, no external change of the heritage building would be permissible. The new construction must not obstruct the view of the heritage building.
4. In 2013, the appellants sought permission from KMC to repair the said building. Reminders were sent in 2014. The KMC authorities did not grant permission. Therefore, repairing work could not be carried out. The appellants say that the said building is in a dilapidated condition and requires urgent repairing work.
5. In 2019, the appellants approached the Project Management Unit of KMC with a re-development plan. The plan was not approved by KMC. The appellants say that inaction on the part of KMC caused a portion of the said building to collapse in the year 2020.
6. Sometime towards the end of 2021, after the Covid Pandemic subsided, the appellants engaged an expert to make a health audit of the said building. The expert opined that the said building is required to be dismantled/demolished forthwith. The building is not inhabitable at present. There is no scope for restoration by making repairs.
7. On the strength of the aforesaid health assessment report, the appellants applied to KMC for passing immediate order for demolition of the said building.
8. Alleging inaction on the part of KMC authorities, the appellants approached the learned Single Judge by filing the instant writ petition being WPO No. 2257 of 2022. The prayers in the writ petition read as follows:-
(b) Declaration that the acceptance of the said premises no. 2, Abanindranath Thakur Sarani, P.S. – Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700 016 as a heritage building by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation on 25th February, 2009 is illegal, null and void ab-initio;
(c) A writ or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondent Authorities to immediately de-list the premises No. 2, Abanindranath Thakur Sarani, P.S. – Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700 016 from the list of heritage buildings in the city of Kolkata;
(d) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus and/or order or orders and/or direction or directions of like nature commanding the respondents to forthwith demolish and/or remove and/or permit the petitioners to demolish and/or remove the three storied dilapidated main building standing at municipal Premise No. 2, Camac Street (Abanindra Nath Tkakur Sarani), P.S. – Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700 016;
(e) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus and/or order or orders and/or direction or directions of like nature
Kamal Kumar Dey v. Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi & Ors.
Purti West Enclave Private Limited & Anr. v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.
The court established that compliance with statutory procedures is essential for the declaration of heritage properties, and property owners have the right to contest such classifications.
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.
If a matter is required to be done in a particular manner, the same has to be done in that manner or not at all.
An interlocutory order deciding the rights of the parties and having the trappings of finality is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and is open to challenge in an intra....
A party must demonstrate a legal right or interest to maintain a writ petition; mere annoyance is insufficient for locus standi.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.