Saikat Ct.No.30 D/L 29 & 30 07.01.2025 WPA 31191 of 2017 Chandra Prakash Sarda & Anr.

versus Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.

With WPA 15113 of 2015 Chandra Prakash Sarda & Anr.

versus Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Mr. Rohit Das, Adv.

Ms. Kishwar Rahman, Adv.

Ms. Sristi Roy, Adv. …for the Petitioners Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Debangshu Mondal, Adv. Mr. Subrangshu Panda, Adv.

...for the K.M.C.

Mr. Arindam Banerjee, Adv.

Mr. Saurabh Prasad, Adv.

Mr. Ashis Kr. Mukherjee, Adv.

...for the Respondent Nos.8, 9, 12 to 15, 17, 18 & 21 Heard the learned advocates appearing for the petitioners, private respondents and the learned advocate appearing for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘K.M.C.’).

The petitioners in the present case have purchased a flat in the premises in this case with two car parking spaces vide a deed dated 26th July, 2012. The Second Schedule to the said deed shows that one of the said car parking spaces is in the basement. It is now the case of the petitioners that the ramp leading to the basement has been illegally demolished and the RCC roof has come up which has made it difficult for the petitioners’ vehicle to use the car parking allotted in the basement.

As directed in a previous writ petition being W.P. 23332(W) of 2014 the petitioners’ representation was considered by the respondent, K.M.C. The Corporation vide an order dated 25th April, 2015 gave the following findings:-

“Inspection at site was carried out in presence of all parties involved. The main allegation raised by the complainant, petitioner No.1 herein is that they have mentioned in the letter dated 17.04.2014, is that they are co- owners of flat 9A at 9^th Floor of the said premises and complaining that the promoters are demolishing the ramp to the basement on the North-West site of the building without the consent, sanction or approval of Kolkata Municipal Corporation and on following such demolition the promoters have constructed RCC roof in violation to the K.M.C. Building Rules.

Moreover one of car parking space allotted to the complainant is in basement for which they are facing serious problem. On inspection it was found that the demolition of the ramp and following construction of the RCC structure, which claimed to be unauthorized by the complainant, is found legal as it was approved and regularized by competent authority of K.M.C. Regarding car parking space of the complainant in the Basement, it has been observed that such space for car parking has not been encroached or impeded in any way by such construction.

Department also submits a plan showing sanction of the structure which was claimed to be unauthorizedly constructed by the respondent and I am satisfied and agreed with the report of the department dated 27.09.2014, that the construction is found to be legal.

Considering statements above I do not find any cogent ground for making any interference into the construction made by the private respondents and accordingly I do hereby dispose the representation dated 17.04.2014 of the writ petitioner without any order for action.”

It appears from the said report disposing the petitioners’ representation, that the Executive Engineer (Building) held that the department in its report dated 27th September, 2014 had submitted a plan showing sanction of the said structure which is claimed to be unauthorisedly constructed by the petitioners herein.

It has been further held that the said demolition of the ramp and following construction of RCC construction is found to be legal and regularised by the competent authority of the K.M.C.

It appears from the said report that the said regularisation was prima facie done subsequent to the purchase by the petitioners and it appears that the petitioners’ right which accrued by the sale deed has been hampered by the said regularisation, which was done changing the nature and character of the disputed site without prior notice to the parties who prima facie had right in the basemen