Judgment :- Tapen Sen, J. On re-assignment of determination, this matter has been taken up. Let it be recorded that on 30.4.2010, this Court had released the matter for want of determination. Now this Court has the determination to deal with hearing matters irrespective of classification of cases. 2. The petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents and particularly, the Municipal Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Respondent no. 2) to set aside his Order [as contained in Annexure P-14 (Page 77 of the writ petition)] whereby and where under, he finally held that the proposed building cannot be sanctioned by operation of Section 357(3) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. However, it was also directed that the Director General (Building) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation would interact with the concerned KIT Authorities and a Committee would be constituted for purposes of undertaking a comprehensive study in relation to alignments issued by them from time to time and the petitioner would be at liberty to present his case before such a Committee. Section 357 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 reads as follows: “357. Defining regular line of a street – (1) The Municipal Commissioner may, with due regard to the minimum widths prescribed for various categories of streets including the footpaths abutting the same, define the regular line on one or both sides of any public street or portions thereof in accordance with the rules and the regulations made in this behalf and may, with the previous sanction of the Corporation, redefine at any time any such regular line : Provided that, before redefining such regular line, the Corporation shall, by public notice, afford a reasonable opportunity to the residents of premises abutting on such public street to make suggestions or objections with respect to the proposed redefinition and shall consider all such suggestions or objections which may be made within one month from the date of publication of such notice : Provided further that the street alignment of any public street operative under any law in any part of Kolkata immediately before the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be a regular line defined by the Municipal Commissioner under this sub-section. (2) The line for the time being defined or redefined shall be called the regular line of the street. (2) The line for the time being defined or redefined shall be called the regular line of the street. (3) No person shall construct or reconstruct any building or portion thereof or any boundary wall within the regular line of a street. (4) The Municipal Commissioner shall maintain a register, containing such particulars as may be prescribed, with plans attached thereto showing all public streets in respect of which the regular line of such streets has been defined or redefined. (5) All such registers shall be open to inspection by any person on payment of such fee, and any extract there from may be supplied on payment of such charges, as may be determined by the Corporation by regulations. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, the Corporation may, if it considers expedient so to do, cancel partly or wholly, or modify, the regular line of a public street after a period of ten years from the date of defining the said regular line, provided the object for which the said regular line was defined has not been completed within the said period : Provided that the Corporation shall, before such cancellation or modification of such regular line, afford, by public notice, a reasonable opportunity to the residents of the premises abutting on such public street to make suggestions or objections with respect to the proposed cancellation or modification of the regular line as aforesaid and shall consider all suggestions or objections which may be made within one month from the date of publication of such notice. 3. The petitioner has also prayed for an Order commanding upon the respondents to sanction the Building Plan as submitted by him in respect of premises no. 1, New Kasia Bagan Lane, Ward No. 64; Borough VII, Calcutta-17. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order referred to above and as contained in Annexure P-14. 4. The petitioner is the owner of Premises No. 1, New Kasia Bagan Lane, P. S. Karaya, Calcutta-17, Ward No. 64, Borough VII having an area of 5 Cottahs 9 Chittaks and 20 sq. ft. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order referred to above and as contained in Annexure P-14. 4. The petitioner is the owner of Premises No. 1, New Kasia Bagan Lane, P. S. Karaya, Calcutta-17, Ward No. 64, Borough VII having an area of 5 Cottahs 9 Chittaks and 20 sq. ft. (more or less) which is bounded and butted as follows: ON THE NORTH : Common Passage; ON THE SOUTH : Public Road known as New Kasia Bagan Lane; ON THE EAST : Public Road known as New Kasia Bagan Lane; ON THE WEST : Premises No. 1A, New Kasia Bagan Lane. 5. The petitioner has stated that he was initially the owner of 10 Cottahs 4 Chittaks of land. Subsequently, he sold 4 Cottahs 6 Chittaks and 36 sq. ft. by a registered Deed of Sale to one Mr. Daud Ahmed, a resident of 14, Mcleod Street, P. S. Park Street, Calcutta-17 in the year 1989. However, in respect of such sale, the purchaser and the petitioner jointly possessed the premises till 2004 as there was no partition by metes and bounds. However, in order to construct a Building jointly upon the premises, the Petitioner filed an Application on 11.6.99 for purposes of verifying the extent to which, and the manner in which, the property could be developed and/or constructed. Such an Application alongwith the Site Plan (Annexure P-1) was filed before the Chief Valuer and Surveyor of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. 6. On 10.11.2000, the Site Plan was returned with an observation to the effect that the premises/property is “affected” by 40 ft. street alignment (now known as regular line) on the eastern side as per alignment plan No. 1250 and smart map (R-29) and therefore, no plan could be sanctioned for the development or construction of any building thereon. The petitioners then sent a legal notice by letter dated 18.12.2000 (Annexure P-3) but inspite thereof nothing was done. 7. Being aggrieved with the decision of the Chief Valuer and Surveyor which was sent to the petitioners vide Memo No. 10.11.2000 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court being WP No. 3348(w) of 2001. The said writ petition came up for hearing before the then Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. P. Kundu. 7. Being aggrieved with the decision of the Chief Valuer and Surveyor which was sent to the petitioners vide Memo No. 10.11.2000 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court being WP No. 3348(w) of 2001. The said writ petition came up for hearing before the then Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. P. Kundu. The writ petition was disposed of by directing the Chief Valuer and Surveyor to treat a copy of the writ application as representation and then to consider and dispose it of after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within 10 weeks from the date of communication of the order. The said order is Annexure P-4. 8. Thereafter, on 14.9.2001, the Chief Valuer and Surveyor conducted a hearing but even after expiry of six weeks, no order was passed. Therefore, the petitioner filed a contempt application which was registered as WPCRC 5634(w) of 2002. However, during the pendency of the contempt application, an Order dated 8.2.2002 passed by the Chief Valuer and Surveyor was produced and as such, on 13.9.2002, the Contempt Application was disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the Order dated 8.2.2002 as contained in Annexure P-5. 9. The petitioner has stated that upon a perusal of the Order dated 8.2.2002, it would appear that reliance was made by the Chief Valuer and Surveyor upon a Notification dated 20.7.1933. Consequently, the petitioner filed an application on 28.1.2003 wherein he prayed that the said Notification dated 20.7.1933 be supplied to him. The said application remained unconsidered and therefore, the petitioner filed WP No. 4015(w) of 2003. 10. The said writ petition came up before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas and by His Lordship’s Order dated 20.3.2003 (Annexure P-6 at page 56). His Lordship disposed it of by directing the Chief Valuer and Surveyor to supply a certified copy of the Notification/alignment sanction Order dated 23.6.1933 which was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 20.7.1933. 11. Thereafter, the Chief Valuer and Surveyor, by his letter dated 16.5.2003, sent a letter to the petitioner under Memo No. CH.V/S-140 informing him that the certified copy of the publication made in the Calcutta Gazette on 20.7.1933 was not available but another document, being the certified copy of the alignment sanctioned on 23.6.1933, had already been handed over to him earlier. This letter is Annexure P-7. 12. This letter is Annexure P-7. 12. The Petitioner has stated that relying on the date of publication of the Notification in the Calcutta Gazette, he searched in the State Archives of the West Bengal at the Writers’ buildings as well as at the National Library and was able to collect a copy of the Gazette Notification (Annexure P-8 to the writ petition). 13. According to the petitioner, the said Gazette Notification dated 20.7.1933 does not include any street alignment at 1, Kasia Bagan Lane and therefore, the decision of the Chief Valuer and Surveyor is totally unsustainable inasmuch as there is no Notification in relation to the said premises in question. 14. The petitioner then filed another writ petition being WP No. 2308(w) of 2004 wherein he inter alia prayed for quashing of the street alignment and also prayed that the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to construct the building by sanctioning the plan in question. 15. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas by his Lordship’s Order dated 2.3.2007, disposed of the writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to file an application seeking sanction of his Building Plan. It was observed that once the application was submitted, the concerned Department of the Corporation shall take necessary steps and shall pass a reasoned order within 10 weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The said order is Annexure P-9. 16. Consequently, on 16.11.2007, the petitioner filed a Building Plan before the Municipal Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation which is contained in Annexure P-10. The hearing was held on 29.1.2008 when the petitioner filed all necessary documents including the Gazette Notification dated 20.7.1933 but inspite thereof, the Municipal Commissioner directed the Chief Valuer and Surveyor to produce the Notification dated 20.7.1933 pertaining to 1, New Kasia Bagan Lane, Calcutta-17. The matter was adjourned and it was again fixed for hearing on 5.5.2008. The petitioner attended the hearing but the Chief Valuer could not show him any Gazette Notification. 17. Thereafter, the undated impugned Order was passed by the Municipal Commissioner which has been challenged in this writ petition. 18. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent nos. 1-5 which has been duly sworn by the Assistant Engineer (C), Building Department, Kolkata Municipal Corporation He has stated that after sale of 4 Cottahs and 6 Chittaks, 36 sq. ft. Thereafter, the undated impugned Order was passed by the Municipal Commissioner which has been challenged in this writ petition. 18. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent nos. 1-5 which has been duly sworn by the Assistant Engineer (C), Building Department, Kolkata Municipal Corporation He has stated that after sale of 4 Cottahs and 6 Chittaks, 36 sq. ft. to one Daud Ahmed in the year 1989, a portion of the premises of 1, New Kasia Bagan Lane was numbered as premises no. 1A, New Kasia Bagan Lane comprising of an area of 5 Cottahs, 9 Chittaks and 20 sq. ft. together with a tiled roof structure. It has been stated that it is not understood as to how the petitioner proceeded to submit a proposal for sanction of the building plan in respect of the entire plot of land. According to the respondents, the petitioner ought NOT to have submitted the plan misrepresenting the area as premises no. 1, New Kasia Bagan Lane, Calcutta. They have also stated that Annexure P-1 which is the site plan would itself show that it is for a 5-storied residential building at Premises no. 1 on an area of 10 Cottahs 4 Chittaks of land submitted by the petitioner alone without making any reference to the sale. This, according to the respondents was a deliberate misrepresentation. 19. These respondents have stated that the petitioner is not entitled to submit any building proposal in respect of both premises no. 1 and 1A. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the regular line, in this case was published in the year 1933 which is almost 79 years old. He has submitted that in a judgment delivered by another Hon’ble Single Judge, viz., Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jyotirmoy Bhattacharjee, it has been held, while dealing with a similar case that where the road alignment was almost 50 years old, it should be regarded as abandoned and/or cancelled in view of non-implementation thereof. 20. Although Mr. He has submitted that in a judgment delivered by another Hon’ble Single Judge, viz., Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jyotirmoy Bhattacharjee, it has been held, while dealing with a similar case that where the road alignment was almost 50 years old, it should be regarded as abandoned and/or cancelled in view of non-implementation thereof. 20. Although Mr. Ashok Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that in the absence of any deeming clause in the Statute, it cannot be presumed that the regular line has been abandoned but, in view of the judgment as delivered by another Hon’ble Single Judge, this court is not inclined to take a different view and therefore, it is held that when the said regular line has not been given effect to nor implemented for so many long years, it must be regarded as having been abandoned and/or cancelled. 21. Therefore, subject to the Petitioner having got his portion mutated and subject to the Application for sanction being confined to the land of the Petitioner, the matter will be reconsidered by the Authorities in accordance with law but without in any way insisting on the alignment of 1933 which, as stated above, should be regarded as having been abandoned or cancelled. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands Disposed of. Upon appropriate Application(s) being made, urgent Photostat Certified copy of this Judgment, be given/issued expeditiously subject to usual terms and conditions.