- (1.) THE facts in this case are briefly as follows: previous to the year 1918 premises Nos. 67 and 69, Simla Street, Calcutta, formed contiguous premises with a common owner. On the 4th February, 1918 a decree was passed by this Court in Partition Suit No. 655 of 1912 whereby the property was divided into two lots, being Lot A and Lot B. Lot A was allotted to Paresh Nath Paul and has been renumbered as premises No. 88, Vivekananda Road. Lot B was allotted to Narendra Nath Paul, the predecessor in-interest of the petitioner and his brother Balai Chandra Paul, and renumbered as premises Nos. 86a and 86b Vivekananda Road. The allottee of premises Nos. 88, Vivekananda Road constructed a three-storeyed building on the vacant plot at the back portion of the said premises, keeping approximately 12' open space on the south western side, adjoining the premises Nos. 86a and 86b Vivekananda Road. Sometime on 7th February, 1958 the respondent No. 13, Madan Mohan Pal Choudhury purchased the back portion of 88, Vivekananda Road. Having purchased it, he applied for mutation of his name and for the allotment of separate premises number.
(2.) THE Corporation of Calcutta made it into a separate holding and allotted to it premises No. 57/3/a, Simla Street. This premises No. 57/3/a, Simla Street is not on Vivekananda Road. Between it and Vivekananda Road there is premises No. 88, Vivekananda Road. The said respondent No. 13 after purchasing the said property No. 57/3/a, Simla Street, submitted a plan to the Corporation of Calcutta for certain constructions. The plan was rejected by the department on the ground that Rules 23 and 30 of Schedule XVI of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') have been infringed. The petitioner states that no notice was given to him about the submission of this plan for sanction although it was against the Building Rules in the said Act and affected the amenities of the petitioner as an owner of the contiguous premises, and although the department had pointed out that the application for sanction cannot be entertained as being violative of the said rules. He came to know of it sometime in 1962 and on the 5th March, 1962 made a complaint to the Corporation that the plan submitted by the respondent No. 13 was contrary to law and should not be sanctioned and notice of hearing should be given to the petitioner when the plan was placed before the Standing Building Committee for sanction. In spite of the said letter, the application for sanction of the plan was placed before the Standing Building Committee without any notice to the petitioner and on the 16th July, 1962 the plan was sanctioned inspite of the recommendation of the Building Department to the effect that no sanction should be given.
(3.) THE petitioner complained to the Mayor and to the Corporation in July and August, 1962 but nothing happened until the petitioner, through his solicitor Mr. S. C. Roy Chowdhury, complained about the illegal sanction of the plan. The Chief Law Officer to the Corporation referred the case for reconsideration of the Standing Building Committee.;