The Special Officer lacked jurisdiction to regularize unauthorized construction under the KMC Act, rendering the action null and emphasizing the fundamental nature of jurisdiction in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. The present application has been preferred by the petitioner challenging three orders, being order 72 dated 19th June 2015, order no. 73 dated 30th June 2015 and order no 74 dated 16th September 2015, passed by the chairman, Municipal Building Tribunal, Kolkata, in B.T. Appeal No. 7 of 2008.

2. Petitioners contended that the petitioners are the owner of premises no. 90A and 90C, Ananda Palit Road, by virtue of purchase through registered deed of conveyance. The opposite party no. 1 herein is the owner of premises no. 90B Anand Palit Road, and it is alleged that the opposite party no. 1 herein has made unauthorised construction in the said premises being premises no 90 B. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioners that the said premises and the premises belonged to the petitioners, were partitioned in the year 1933 and according to the partition plan the said premises no. 90B having an area of 1 cottah 3 chittak of land, is butted and bounded as per schedule of the partition plan. The present opposite party no. 1 became owner of the said premises No. 90B by way of a deed of conveyance dated 5th March, 2003.

3. Petitioners alleged that the opposite party no. 1 herein sometimes in August 2004 started constructing in an unauthorized manner in the said premises no. 90B by changing the shape, size and character of the said premises and also demolished the partition wall in order to enlarge his area of occupation beyond his entitlement and thereby has caused damage to the petitioner’s premises no. 90A and 90C to a great extent. Said opposite party no. 1 also blocked the common passage in the western side of the said premises.

4. The Municipal authorities started proceedings on the basis of complaint lodged by the petitioner herein against the opposite party no. 1 being D/ Case no. 35-D / 2004-05. Upon hearing the parties, the Special Officer (Building) allowed the opposite party no. 1 to retain the unauthorized construction on payment of regularization fee and other formalities by an order dated 12 June, 2006.

5. The petitioner herein moved a writ petition before this Court challenging the order dated 12th July, 2006 and ultimately this Court disposed the said writ application giving liberty to file statutory appeal before the concerned Municipal Building Tribunal. The petitioners accordingly filed aforesaid appeal being B.T. No. 7 of 2008. During pendency of the appeal petitioners had filed two applications one for supply of digital map and another for recalling the order dated 2nd September 2014. By the impugned order no. 72 dated 19th June, 2015 the application for supply of digital map stood rejected and by order no. 73 dated 30th June, 2015 the application for considering some points regarding local inspection was also rejected. Since the petitioners sought time before the Tribunal, as they were preparing to challenge aforesaid order no. 72 and 73, the Tribunal imposed cost on the petitioners for seeking adjournment by the aforesaid impugned order no. 74 dated 16 September, 2015.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders petitioners have urged the following points before this court:-

(a) Appeal arises from an order passed by the Special Court (Building) Kolkata Municipal corporation (hereinafter called as KMC), who does not have jurisdiction to entertain any co