Back
ARIJIT BANERJEE, RAI CHATTOPADHYAY
Rigmadirappa Investments Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Kolkata Municipal Corporation – Respondent
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:-
A party must demonstrate a legal right or interest to maintain a writ petition; mere annoyance is insufficient for locus standi.
The court upheld the validity of the sanctioned building plan and ruled that the writ petitioner had sufficient standing to maintain the petition despite failing to prove unauthorized construction.
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 underscores the need for regulatory compliance in urban development, confirming that unauthorized de-licensing and changes in land-use violate statutory framework, necessitating CBI investig....
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.
The refusal of a No Objection Certificate for redevelopment based on misinterpretation of lease terms was deemed arbitrary, reinforcing the need for state entities to act fairly under Article 14 of t....
The Supreme Court ruled that unauthorized constructions cannot be demolished without credible evidence of legal violations, emphasizing the importance of prior permissions from competent authorities ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
