DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) The petitioner has assailed an Order dated August 10, 2006 passed by the Special Officer (Building) of Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) in a proceedings under Section 400 of the KMC Act, 1980 in respect of Premises No. 161/2/1, Rashbehari Avenue, Kolkata.
(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the Special Officer (Building) in the impugned order has regularized unauthorized constructions. The provisions of the KMC Act, 1980 does not permit regularization. In support of the contention that regularization of unauthorized construction is not permissible, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon 2013 Volume 1 Calcutta High Court Notes (SC) page 21 (Dipak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkata municipal Corporation), 2013 Volume 5 Supreme Court Cases page 357 (Esha Ekta Apartments Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai & Ors.), 2014 Volume 4 Calcutta High Court Notes (Cal) page 296 (Ghanashyam Das v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation) and 2015 Volume 1 Calcutta Law Times page 368 (H.C.) (Dhriti Kanta Lahiri Chowdhury v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.).
(3.) Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, since the impugned order has been passed in excess of jurisdiction, a writ petition is maintainable. The impugned order should be set aside in view of lack of jurisdiction to pass an order of regularization in respect of an unauthorized construction.;