IMPORTANT POINT
A party must demonstrate a legal right or interest to maintain a writ petition; mere annoyance is insufficient for locus standi.

JUDGMENT :

Arijit Banerjee, J.

1. The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is a judgment and order dated January 14, 2021, whereby the appellant’s writ petition being WPO 388 of 2018, was dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court.

2. The dispute between the parties involves a property situate at 59 Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata 700 019, commonly known as ‘Tripura House’. The respondent no. 5 is the owner of the said property.

3. Pursuant to an agreement dated December 7, 1998, entered into by and between the appellant and the predecessor in interest of the respondent no. 5 i.e, Manikya Kirit Bikram Kishore Deb Burman, the appellant acting as developer, constructed a building on a portion of ‘Tripurah House’. That portion measuring about 53 cottahs was segregated from the mother premises and was numbered as 59A Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata 700 019. The property so developed came to be known as ‘Tripura Enclave’.

4. The said development agreement contained an arbitration clause for resolution of possible future disputes arising in connection with the said agreement between the parties thereto.

5. Clause 22(vi) of the said development agreement reads as follows:-

“In case in future the Landlord shall be desirous of developing the remaining part of the said premises then and in such event, the Developer shall have the first preference to act as Developer.”

6. Construction of ‘Tripura Enclave’ was completed by 2007.

7. In the year 2009, ‘Tripura House’ was declared to be a Grade I Heritage Building, by the Heritage Conservation Committee of Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short ‘KMC’).

8. Some time in the year 2014, the owner of ‘Tripura House’, viz, the respondent no. 5 herein, wrote to the West Bengal Heritage Commission (in short ‘the Heritage Commission’) for clearing a draft plan for construction of a building on the western portion of the property.

9. A series of correspondence was exchanged by and between the respondent no. 5, the Heritage Commission represented by its Chairman and KMC. The Heritage Commission in principle granted approval for construction of the proposed building on the western portion of the property subject to certain modifications in the building plan. The Municipal Commissioner, KMC, finally sanctioned the building plan on January 18, 2018. The sanction was for a B+G+13 storeyed building.

10. In July, 2018, the appellant filed a writ petition, essentially challenging the permission granted by the Heritage Commission and KMC for construction of the proposed building on the western portion of the property. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioner has a right to develop the said premises as would be evident from the agreement dated December 7, 1998. It was further argued that the permission granted by the Heritage Commission and KMC for construction of the proposed building, is contrary to and in violation of the laws governing heritage properties.

11. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition by the judgment and order which is assailed in this appeal. Some relevant portions of the impugned judgment read as follows:-

“Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has been unable to demonstrate any ground which warrants interference by this Court. On the contrary, it is submitted by the parties that there is a substantive public interest litigation which has been filed pertaining to the very same premises being developed by the respondent no. 6 and the permission granted by the Commission.

…..

The issue of the validity of the permission granted to the respondent no. 6 by the Heritage Commission is already pending before the Hon’ble Division Bench. I am of the view that the petitioner lacks any locus to maintain such a petition. The petitioner quite apparently is not a person aggrieved. The petitioner has no legal right to relief. The petitioner’s right is not sought to be affected in any manner whatsoever by the proposal to develop the building by the respondent no. 6.