Judgment : Soumitra Pal, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment delivered on 30th March, 2012 whereby the learned Single Judge following an unreported judgment delivered on 7th June, 2006 in W.P. 11734 (W) of 2006 (AGW Relators Pvt. Ltd. v. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation) disposed of the writ petition holding as the regular line of a street has not been given effect to or implemented for so many long years, it must be regarded to have been abandoned and/or cancelled. It appears that the respondent, unable to get his building plan sanctioned in respect of premises no No.1 New Kashia Bagan Lane, Kolkata – 700064, Ward no. 69, under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, filed a writ petition, being W.P. No.2308 (W) of 2004, which was disposed of by passing an order, the relevant portion of which is as under:- “For these reasons, I think the writ petition should be disposed of giving necessary directions. I, accordingly, dispose of its giving liberty to the petitioner to submit the application seeking sanction to his building plan with respect to the premises in question. Once the application is submitted, the departments concerned of the corporation shall take necessary steps for completing the necessary exercises. The observations, report and other connected records shall be collected and brought on record of the sanction case and they shall be placed before the commissioner who shall issue appropriate notice offering opportunity of hearing of the petitioner. After giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity of presenting his case, and after considering all reports, observations, documents and particularly the 1993 notification, he shall give the requisite reasoned decision in the matter within ten weeks from date of receipt of the application from the petitioner seeking sanction. It is made clear that the commissioner shall ensure that all his departments complete the requisite exercises within the shortest possible time so that he may give the final decision in the matter well within the time. The decision once taken shall be communicated to the petitioner. There shall be no order for costs in the case.” Pursuant to the said order the petitioner submitted a building plan before the Commissioner for sanction. The Commissioner after giving an opportunity for hearing, passed an order declining sanction, the relevant portion (as printed in the paper book) of which is extracted hereunder:- “Heard, perused the documents placed before me Considered. The Commissioner after giving an opportunity for hearing, passed an order declining sanction, the relevant portion (as printed in the paper book) of which is extracted hereunder:- “Heard, perused the documents placed before me Considered. It is well established from the documents that a 40 feet wide CMC road on the eastern side of the premises has been sanctioned by the Corporation in its meeting held on 23rd June, 1933. It is clear from the facts that the said alignment was duly published in the Calcutta Gazette on 20th July, 1933. It is further apparent from records that the said road is already widened by about 60% considering this alignment. It is true that the copy of the Gazette Notification dt.20th July, 1933 is not readily available. But non- vailability of the Gazette Notification can not rule out the existence of an alignment/regular line. It is further clear that this alignment has been duly recorded in the Smart Plan and as such the existence thereof cannot be questioned only on the ground that copy of the gazette notification dt. 20th July, 1933 is not available. In that view of the matter and in view of the existence of regular line within which the building is proposed to be sanctioned, I am unable to accept the contention of the writ petitioner that since the copy of the gazette notification dt. 20th July, 1933 is not available the alignment should not be considered and the building plan should be sanctioned. On the basis of the documents available I hold that this regular line of a street is existing and no person is allowed to construct any building within the regular line of the street as per provision of Sec. 357(3) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. Accordingly, I hold that the proposed building cannot be sanctioned in the facts and circumstances. I, accordingly, dispose of the matter by holding that the proposed building cannot be sanctioned by operation of sub section 3 of section 357 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. Accordingly, I hold that the proposed building cannot be sanctioned in the facts and circumstances. I, accordingly, dispose of the matter by holding that the proposed building cannot be sanctioned by operation of sub section 3 of section 357 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. However, before parting with I would like to place it on record that in order to bring transparency in the matter of alignments issued by K.M.C. and K.I.T. from time to time a review of the entire scenario is required to be undertake on priority basis and a notification containing all present alignment all present alignment proposed by K.M.C & K.I.T. may be issued to that there may not be any further confusion in this regard. In order to implement such a review I direct the Director General (Building) of K.M.C to interest with concerned K.I.T. authorities on the issue. Subsequently, a committee will be constituted having participation of K.M.C. & K.I.T. to undertake a comprehensive study. The petitioner may be at liberty to present his case before such committee. Sd/- Municipal Commissioner” Aggrieved by the said order the appellant filed a writ petition, being W.P. No. 1718 of 2008, which was disposed of by passing an order, the relevant portion (as printed in the paper book) runs thus – “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 Kashia Bagan Lane was numbered as premises No. 1A, New Kashia 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 now 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 Kashia Bagan Lane, Calcutta. It has been stated that it is not understood as to now 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 Kashia Bagan Lane, Calcutta. They have also stated that Annexure P- 1, which is the site plan would itself show that it was 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………………., it has been held, while dealing with a similar case that where he 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 may long years it must be regarded as having been abandoned and/or cancelled. 21. 21. Therefore, subject to the petitioner having got his portion mutated and subject to the Application for sanction being confined to the land to 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.” (Emphasis supplied) Evidently, the learned Single Judge had passed the impugned order following a judgment passed on 7th June, 2006 in W.P. 11734 (W) of 2006 (AGW Relators Pvt. Ltd and others versus The Kolkata Municipal Corporation and others) wherein it was held that as the said regular line of street therein has neither been given effect to nor implemented for so many years, it should be regarded as having been abandoned and/or cancelled. The relevant portion of the said judgment is set out hereinbelow:- “Heard the learned Advocates of the parties, Considered the materials on record. In appears from annexure “P-5” to this writ petition that the impugned road alignment under alignment plan No.9795 was declared as back as on 14th December, 1956. The said alignment was declared for widening the municipal road. Fifty years passed thereafter, but no step has been taken by the Municipal authority to implement its plan for widening the road till date. Various buildings were allowed to have been constructed within the declared alignment line under the said alignment plan during these long fifty years. The Municipal authority, thus freezes the property of a citizen for long fifty years and even then the Municipal authorities are still not certain as to how they propose to achieve the public purpose by utilizing the said till date. That apart, when the Municipal authority has allowed construction of buildings within the alignment line of the impugned alignment plan even after the declaration of alignment, it should be presumed that the Municipal authority has practically abandoned the said project. Keeping this land to remain unutilized for long fifty years by declaring alignment is an act of fraud upon statute. The public authority should not be allowed to misuse its power under the statute in such a manner. In this regard reference may be made to the Division Bench decision of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Ratan Chand Barman & Anr. Vs. The public authority should not be allowed to misuse its power under the statute in such a manner. In this regard reference may be made to the Division Bench decision of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Ratan Chand Barman & Anr. Vs. The Chairman, Calcutta Improvement Trust & Ors., reported in AIR 1991 Cal. 281, wherein the project was declared as abandoned due to non-implementation of the project within long 25 years. Under such circumstances, this Court declares that the road alignment declared under alignment Plan No. 9795 dated 14th December 1956, running from Seal Lane to Mahandra Ray Lane connecting Christopher Gobra Gorathan Road in Borough- VI, Calcutta 700015 should be regarded as abandoned and/or cancelled Liberty is, thus given to the petitioners to apply for mutation before the Municipal authority. The petitioners are also given liberty to submit plan for sanction for construction of building in the said premises. It is made clear that in the event a prayer is made by the petitioners either for mutation and for sanction of building plan in the said premises, the Municipal authority will consider the petitioners’ such prayer in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible by ignoring the road alignment declared under alignment plan no. 9795 by the Municipal authority from December 1956 under the provision section 356 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. The writ petition, thus stands allowed. There will be however, no order as costs.” (Emphasis supplied) Mr. Ashok Kumar Banerjee, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, – Kolkata Municipal Corporation, - submitted that the building plan, as submitted by the writ petitioner, cannot be sanctioned as per building rules in view of the fact that the said plan covers an area not owned by the writ petitioner only. Moreover, as regular line/alignment was notified in the Calcutta Gazette on 28th July, 1927, the learned Single Judge should have appreciated that since a procedure has been prescribed in section 357(6) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (for short “the Act”) for cancellation or modification of a regular line / street alignment it has to be adhered to. Unless the regular line is cancelled or modified following the procedure prescribed in the statute, the regular line/alignment of a street remains operative. Unless the regular line is cancelled or modified following the procedure prescribed in the statute, the regular line/alignment of a street remains operative. Since regular line/ alignment of a street has been clearly defined in section 357 and cancellation can be done partly or wholly in accordance with the provisions contained in section 357(6) and as there cannot an estoppel against a statutory provision, the question of abandonment or waiver of regular line / alignment does not arise. As the smart plan prepared long back clearly demonstrates the existence of street line/ alignment of the said lane, the Municipal Commissioner rightly held that since regular line of the street was existing, no person was permitted to construct any building within the regular line / alignment of the street. Submission was if the argument put forward by the respondent is accepted it would put a clog on the future development of this densely populated city. Mr. L.C. Bihani, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent in appeal, that is the writ petitioner, submitted that the Municipal Commissioner in his impugned order had upheld the validity of an un-notified street alignment upon the property of the petitioner which is per se illegal and liable to be set aside as there has been no notification under section the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 and possession was not taken in accordance with law. Moreover, the impugned order failed to take note of the fact that the gazette notification did not include any street alignment in respect of 1, New Kashia Bagan Lane. Accordingly there is no scope of existence of regular line/alignment in the premises in question. Moreover, even if a decision on street alignment was taken in the year 1933 or even assuming in 1927, as the Corporation failed to implement the regular line for the past 80 years and as there has been an unexplained and inordinate delay in its implementation, the said regular line/alignment has lost its force. Accordingly it has to be inferred that the respondents had abandoned and cancelled such line/alignment, if any, and thus any attempt to impose such line/alignment is an act of fraud upon the statute. Submission was the respondents should not be allowed to misuse the power under the statute in such a manner. Accordingly it has to be inferred that the respondents had abandoned and cancelled such line/alignment, if any, and thus any attempt to impose such line/alignment is an act of fraud upon the statute. Submission was the respondents should not be allowed to misuse the power under the statute in such a manner. Learned senior advocate for the respondent had relied on the judgment of the High Court in Ratan Chand Barman and another versus The Chairman, Calcutta Improvement Trust: AIR 1991 Calcutta 282 in support of his submission. The issue is in view of section 357, particularly sub-sections (3) and (6) thereof, whether a road line/street alignment is presumed to have been abandoned if it remains unutilised by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for eighty years and as various buildings have been constructed within the declared line/alignment during this period. In order to appreciate the issue it is necessary to set out section 357 which is set out hereunder:- “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. (3) No person shall construct or reconstruct any building or portion thereof or any boundary wall within the regular line of a 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 therefrom 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.” (Emphasis supplied) Evidently the Municipal Commissioner may, with due regard to the minimum widths prescribed for various categories of streets including footpaths abutting the same, define the regular line on one or both sides of any public street or portions. Elaborate process, as noted, has been prescribed for redefining a regular line. As seen section 357(3) bars a person from constructing or reconstructing any building or portion of it or any boundary wall within the regular line of a street. Elaborate process, as noted, has been prescribed for redefining a regular line. As seen section 357(3) bars a person from constructing or reconstructing any building or portion of it or any boundary wall within the regular line of a street. Besides, section 357(6) empowers the Corporation to 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 regular line if the object for which the said regular line was defined has not been completed within the said period However, proviso to section 357(6) postulates that before such cancellation or modification of such regular line the Corporation by public notice shall afford a reasonable opportunity to the residents of the premises abutting on such public street to make suggestion or objections and shall consider all such suggestions or objections. The short question is when the said regular line/alignment has not been given effect to or implemented for about eighty years can it be said to have been abandoned or/cancelled. Since section 357(3) in no uncertain terms bars construction within a regular line of a street and section 357(6) postulates that a regular line/alignment of a public street can be cancelled partly or wholly or can be modified within a period of ten years from the date of defining the regular line, if the object for which the said regular line was defined has not been completed within the said period, after issuing public notice and giving residents of the premises abutting on public street to make suggestion or objections, , thus making it obligatory for the Corporation to consider all suggestion or objections, the answer has to be in the negative. The judgment in W.P. No. 11734 (W) of 2006 (AGW Relators Pvt. Ltd v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation), followed by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment, does not lay down the correct position of law as therein section 357, particularly sub-sections (3) and (6) and the proviso, were not considered. The impugned judgment too does not deal with section 357. The impugned judgment too does not deal with section 357. As section 357(3) creates an absolute bar to construct or reconstruct any building within the regular line of a street, keeping the land unutilised cannot be an act of fraud upon the statute or misuse of power under the statute and the road alignment cannot be said to be abandoned or cancelled as held in W.P. 11734 (W) of 2006 (AGW Relators Pvt. Ltd v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation). In view of such statutory prohibition, a regular line/alignment cannot be said to be practically abandoned as others have constructed buildings. Since statute permits maintenance of a line/alignment of a street and bars construction within it and as section 357(6) and its proviso lay down a detailed procedure for cancellation or modification of the said line/alignment, the question of abandonment of the project, does not arise. In our view any other interpretation of section 357 shall defeat the intention of the legislature. In fact the language in section 357 is so simple and unambiguous that it hardly requires any interpretation. That apart the petitioner in the writ petition did not challenge section 357 of the Act. In this context it is to be noted that there cannot be waiver of the provisions of a statute particularly enacted in the interest of public in general. Moreover there cannot be estoppel against a statutory provision. The judgment in Ratan Chand Barman (supra) is inapplicable as it deals with the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and the Calcutta Improvement Act 1911 and not with section 357 of the Act which deals with defining a regular line/alignment. Therefore, in our view, the judgment in W.P. 11734 (W) of 2006 (AGW Relators Pvt Ltd v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation) relied on in the impugned judgment does not lay down the correct proposition of law. Hence, the judgment under appeal passed on 30th March, 2012 in W.P. No. 1718 of 2008 is set aside and quashed. Appeal is, thus, allowed. No order as to costs Soumitra Pal, J. I agree.