IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

Arijit Banerjee, J.

1. A judgment and order dated July 16, 2018, passed by a learned Judge of this Court dismissing the appellants’ writ petition being W.P. No. 146 of 2010, is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the writ petitioners.

2. The learned Single Judge has negated the writ petitioners’ challenge to declaration of their property as Grade-I Heritage by Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short ‘KMC’). The material facts of the case are as follows:-

(i) Responding to a public notice issued by the Official Receiver in terms of orders passed by this Court, the appellants, in short ASL (which was previously known as ‘Purti’) participated in an auction process for grant of 99 years’ lease in respect of premises no. 22, Park Street, Kolkata- 700016 (in short ‘the subject property’). ASL emerged as the highest bidder. Upon ASL paying Rs.10.5 crore to the Official Receiver, the latter executed a lease in favour of ASL in respect of the subject property.

(ii) KMC refused mutation in favour of ASL in respect of the subject property on the ground that the same is a heritage property.

(iii) ASL made representations to KMC objecting to classification of the subject property as heritage and for excluding the property from the heritage list.

3. Not having received any favourable response from KMC, ASL filed the instant writ petition praying for the following reliefs:-

“(a) A writ of and / or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondents, their men, agents, servants, and assigns to forthwith-

(i) Quash, rescind, recall, set aside, cancel and/or revoke the impugned classification of premises No. 22, Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016 as Heritage Building under Grade – I for the architectural style;

(ii) Refrain from giving any effect and/or further effect and/or taking any step and /or further step pursuant to classification of premises No. 22, Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016 as Heritage Building under Grade – I for architectural style;

(iii) Direct the Chairman, Heritage Conservation Committee to furnish the petitioner with a copy of the purported recommendation, if any, for classification of premises no. 22, Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016 as Heritage Building under Grade – I for architectural style;

(b) Writ of and/or writs in the nature of Certiorari commanding the respondents, their men, agents, servants and/or assigns to transmit to this Hon’ble Court all records relating to the classification of premises no. 22, Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016 as Heritage Building under Grade – I for architectural style and serve the same to this Hon’ble Court so that conscionable justice be rendered by quashing the same;”

4. Despite direction for exchange of affidavits having been given by the learned Single Judge, no affidavit was filed by KMC.

5. By an order dated March 31, 2016, the writ petition was allowed. The declaration of the subject property as a heritage building was set aside.

6. KMC preferred an intra court appeal. By a judgment and order dated August 30, 2017, the appeal was allowed by a Coordinate Bench and the matter was remanded to the learned Single Judge for consideration afresh. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:-

“It is the admitted position that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the writ petitioners/respondents had obtained leasehold right of the subject property by way of transfer from the Official Receiver in a Court proceeding at a point of time when the property was already declared as a heritage property/building. The learned Single Judge, without taking this aspect into consideration, has allowed the writ petition upon coming to a finding that the declaration of heritage status of 22, Park Street was liable to be set aside along with its classification or gradation as Grade-I. We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the learned Single Judge ought to have at first decided on the aspect of whether the writ petitioners/respondents co