The court affirmed the validity of a century-old street alignment plan, emphasizing its public interest and the authority's duty to maintain such regulations.

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. :

1. The present writ application has been preferred praying for direction upon the respondent authorities to rescind and/or cancel and/or withdraw the order dated 18th November, 2019 and a declaration to the effect that the sanction of the 100 years’ alignment on 14, Armenian Street, Kolkata-700007 has become infructuous and non-existent.

2. The petitioners’ case herein is that he is the sole and absolute owner of premises No. 14, Armenian Street, Kolkata-700007 (hereinafter referred to as the “said property, The said property being premises No. 14, Armenian Street, Kolkata- 700007, is a partly two storied dilapidated and partly three storied building on an area of more or less 6 cottahs and 3 chittaks.

3. The petitioners proposed to construct a new building on the said property. The petitioners state that prior to obtaining a plan for sanction of a new building, no objection certificate is required in terms of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 2009 from the Chief Valuer and Surveyor Department of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, the respondent no. 5 herein.

4. The petitioners accordingly applied before the respondent no. 5 for issuance of a “No Objection” to enable the petitioners to apply for sanction of a building plan.

5. There is a 40’ wide revised alignment line sanctioned on 10th September, 1919, pending for last 100 years.

6. Challenging such unexplained 100 years pending alignment, the petitioners submitted a written representation to the Municipal Commissioner on 7^th March, 2017 with copies to the Mayor-in-Council (Roads) and the Chief Valuer and Surveyors Department of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “KMC”) for cancellation of the alignment plan of 1919.

7. It is further submitted that the Kolkata Municipal Corporation did not act upon the written representation dated 7^th March, 2017 filed by the petitioners. Another representation dated 29^th March, 2017 also addressed to the Municipal Commissioner requesting that the petitioners may be permitted to make construction in the petitioners’ premises as for the sanction building plan.

8. On being aggrieved by the acts and/or actions of the respondents in failing to consider the petitioners’ repeated requests for cancellation of the pending alignment plan of 99 years, the petitioners moved a writ petition being W.P. No. 279 of 2017 (Suresh Chand Jain –versus- Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.) on 12th May, 2017 before this Hon’ble Court and on hearing the Petition his Lordship the Hon’ble Justice Harish Tandon was pleased to dispose of the same with direction to consider in the light of the provisions contained under Section 357(6) of the said Act within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order.

9. On or about 17th August, 2017, the respondent no. 5 gave a reply to the petitioners to the effect as follows:-

“That as per the order of the Hon‟ble Justice Harish Tandon, in the High Court at Calcutta the representation made by the petitioner to the Municipal Commissioner in the light of the provision contained under Section 357(6) 1980 is taken up for consideration and is rejected.”

10. The petitioners then filed another representation dated 29^th June, 2018 again requesting them to permit him to construct the premises in view of the strict compliance of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 2009 by cancelling the said alleged unjustified and unexplained 100 years pending alignment line since 19th September, 1919 being No. 1368 but to no effect.

11. As the petitioners were not heard. The petitioners moved a writ petition being W.P. No. 373 of 2018 (Suresh Chand Jain –versus- Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.) and the said writ petition came up for final hearing on 18^th September, 2019 when this Hon’ble Court was pleased to set aside and quash the order dated 22nd June, 2017 and remanded back the matter to the respondent no. 2 for being decided after giving the petitioners and other con