SANJIB DUTTA Vs. LALIT HIMATLAL KAMPANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has been filed by an added party to a proceeding being B.T. Appeal No.39 of 2011 pending before the learned Municipal Building Tribunal, Kolkata Municipal Corporation. By the order impugned the learned Tribunal upheld the order of the Special Officer (Buildings) directing demolition of the structures belonging to the petitioner. The learned Tribunal upheld the said order upon perusal of the records and the written arguments filed by the respective parties and upon recording that oral submission were not required to be made.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that the vendor of the petitioner was the original appellant before the learned Tribunal. Subsequent to the purchase, the petitioner was added as a respondent on the basis of an order passed by this Court in W.P. No.2222 (W) of 2016 dated February 25, 2016 wherein the petitioner was allowed to protect his title to the land as also protect the construction which was the subject matter of the appeal. It was directed that the petitioner be heard. The petitioner was added as a party in the appeal. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred another writ petition being W.P. No.13763 (W) of 2017 being aggrieved by an order dated April 18, 2017 passed by the Municipal Building Tribunal in B.T. Appeal No.39 of 2011. It was the contention of the petitioner that he should be allowed to appear before the Special Officer (Buildings) for re-hearing as the demolition order was passed when he was not a party to the proceeding. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction upon the Municipal Building Tribunal to allow the petitioner to participate in the appeal as the petitioner being the subsequent purchaser had a right to protect his title in the land and the construction made thereon. The learned Judge was also pleased to observe that, as the petitioner was already in possession of the relevant documents, the hearing of the appeal should not be stalled simply on the ground that separate sets of documents were required to be served on the petitioner. This Court observed that the petitioner would be allowed to participate and intervene in the proceeding. All the points available to the petitioner could be agitated before the Tribunal affecting the legality of the order passed by the hearing officer. The Municipal Tribunal was further directed to dispose of the proceeding as expeditiously as possible by providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. Thereafter the petitioner was added to the proceeding. The hearing was concluded and the verdict of the Tribunal was reserved by an order dated June 22, 2017 and July 14, 2017 was fixed for delivery of judgment.

(3.) It is an admitted position that the parties had made their arguments before the learned Tribunal and the respondent no.4 had declined from making any further submission on June 22, 2017. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for transposition to the category of appellant and not the respondent. The said application was rejected. The petitioner also filed an application before the learned Tribunal for filing a cross objection and a memorandum of cross objection. The learned Tribunal allowed the application. Challenging the aforesaid order allowing filing of a memorandum of cross objection, the opposite party no.1 preferred a revisional application before this Court. The said revisional application was allowed. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing an application for regularization under the third and fourth proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 400 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The said application was taken on record by an order dated April 17, 2018 and August 9, 2018 was fixed for hearing of the said application by the learned Tribunal. Thereafter, several dates were fixed for hearing of the said application. By order dated November 30, 2018 the Tribunal rejected the said application as being misleading and vague and the learned Tribunal fixed January 7, 2019 as the date for delivery of judgment. By the order dated January 7, 2019 the order of demolition passed by the Special Officer (Buildings) was upheld. Both the orders dated November 30, 2018 and January 7, 2019 are under challenge before this Court.