Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioners have challenged the classification of premises No. 22, Park Street, Kolkata- 700016 as heritage building under Grade (I) for architectural type.
(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the writ petition has to be heard in terms of the order of remand of the Division Bench dated August 30, 2017. The first petitioner had participated in a proceeding for grant of lease of the concerned premises, conducted by the official receiver. The petitioners became the highest bidder in such proceeding. The first petitioner was confirmed to be the highest bidder by an Order dated April 9, 2008. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the terms and conditions governing the proceeding for grant of the lease as well as the order confirming the grant of lease in favour of the first petitioner. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the various clauses of the deed of lease executed between the official receiver and the first petitioner. He has submitted that, the first petitioner has a right to construct in terms of the order dated April 9,2008 and the lease deed dated October 3, 2008.
(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioners has relied upon (Kamal Dey v. Archeological Survey of India, New Delhi, 2016 1 CalHN 329) and has submitted that, the building concerned, cannot be considered as a heritage building. He has referred to Kamal Dey and submitted that, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation did not adhere to the provisions of Sections 425A and 425B of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, in declaring the building as a heritage building. The documents referred to in Kamal Dey have been referred to and relied upon by the Corporation in the present proceeding. On the strength of such documents, it cannot be said that, the concerned premises has been declared as a heritage building in terms of the provisions of Section 425B of the Act of 1980.;