JUDGMENT : Arijit Banerjee, J. The writ petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus upon the respondent authorities to grant sanction to the building plan submitted by the petitioners in respect of Premises No. 761, Madurdaha, Kolkata-700107. Case of the Petitioners': 2. The petitioners no. 1 to 30 are all private limited companies. The petitioner no. 31 is the director and authorised representative of the petitioner nos. 1 to 30. The petitioners nos. 1 to 30 (in short 'the petitioners') have acquired by 54 several conveyance deeds, different plots of land adjoining each other, situate in Mouza Madurdaha which is within the Borough No. XII of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short 'KMC'). 3. After acquiring the said plots of land, the petitioners applied to the KMC to mutate the said plots of land in the names of the petitioners. Initially the KMC sat tight on such applications and the petitioners had to approach this court twice by way of writ petitions. Finally, in terms of a judgment and order dated 13th December, 2013 passed by this Court in WP No. 656 of 2013, the names of the petitioners were mutated and the various plots owned by the petitioners were amalgamated and allotted a single municipal premises no. being No. 761, Madurdaha, Kolkata 700107 (in short 'the said premises'). 4. Subsequently, the petitioners prepared a building plan for making construction on the said premises and submitted the same for sanction by the KMC. The petitioners have also submitted necessary No Objection Certificates including those from Fire Department and BSNL. 5. At a meeting of KMC's Municipal Building Committee held on 25th November, 2014, the building plan was corrected and changes as desired by the respondents were incorporated. The Municipal Building Committee sanctioned the plan subject to the submission of NOC from the Urban Land Ceiling Department. Even though the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 does not apply to the said land, and even though the petitioners submitted certificate from the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities, the respondent authorities asked for NOC from the Urban Land Ceiling Department. 6. By way of abundant caution the petitioners had already applied for NOC from the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities on 13th October, 2014. 6. By way of abundant caution the petitioners had already applied for NOC from the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities on 13th October, 2014. However, no such certificate was furnished by the competent authority under the 1976 Act even after three months elapsed from the date of the application for such certificate. 7. Rule 4 (4) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 2009, provides, inter alia, as follows:- "In the case of a site or plot measuring 500 square metre or more to which, the Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976 (33 of 1976) applies, the notice shall be accompanied by a 'No Objection Certificate' from the competent authority, appointed under clause (d) of Section 2 of the said Act, to the effect that there is no objection or in respect of transfer of the site or plot under sub-Section (3) of Section 5 of the said Act: Provided that the requirement as aforesaid shall be deemed to have been waived on the failure of the competent authority to furnish the certificate within three months from the date of reference to it." 8. Upon expiry of three months, the requirement of NOC is deemed to have been waived and there can be no impediment to the respondent authorities in granting sanction to the building plan. However, the respondent authorities are sitting tight over the matter and have not yet sanctioned the building plan. Hence, the present writ petition. 9. On 17th March when the writ petition was moved, this court directed that the State of West Bengal, through the Secretary, Urban Development Department be added as a party respondent. On 20th March, 2015 this court recorded the categorical submission of Ld. Counsel for KMC that KMC per se has no objection in proceeding with sanction of the plan. However, Ld. Counsel for the KMC had drawn this court's attention to a memorandum bearing No. 3008/ULC/Alip/2014 dated 12th December, 2014 issued to the Special Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Urban Development (Urban Land Ceiling) Department, by the competent authority, ULC, SDO, Alipore, Sadar, 24 Parganas, to the following effect:- "Sir, During disposal of No Objection Certificates at this end it has been found that a good number of different companies purchase less than 500 sq. mtr. of agricultural land in the name of each company. mtr. of agricultural land in the name of each company. After that they mutate their names in the Record-of-Right maintained in the office of B.L & L.R.O concerned. In Section 2(O) of the U.L. (C&R) Act, 1976, 'Urban Land' has been defined as 'Urban Land' means:- (i) Any land situate within the limits of an urban agglomeration and referred to as such in the master plan; or (ii) In a case where there is no master plan, or where the master plan does not refer to any land as urban land, any land within the limits or an urban agglomeration and situate in any area included within the local limits of a municipality (by whatever name called) a notified area committee, a town area committees a city and town committee, a small town committee, a Cantonment Board or a panchayat, which is namely but does not include any such land used for the purpose of agricultural. So, unless and until classification of 'agricultural land' is changed vesting proceedings cannot be initiated as per the provisions of the U.L. (C&R) Act, 1976. After such purchase of agricultural land each of the multiple companies claim to become joint owner of land of less than 500 sq. mtrs. And mutate their names in different Khatians and then convert their agricultural plots into homestead plots. Then they approach this end for getting No Objection Certificate. By this way they manage to obtain 'NOC' as each of those individual companies do not hold more than 500 sq. mtr. of vacant land in individual capacity. Kindly recall the discussion held with you earlier over telephone. Hence, a clear and detailed instruction is solicited from your end for disposal of such cases from this end at the earliest." 10. KMC has filed an affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on 18th June, 2015 wherein the stand taken is that the KMC could not sanction the building plan as the petitioners did not submit the NOC from the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The petitioners submit that since the requirement of NOC stands waived by reason of non-response of the competent authority to the petitioner's application for NOC, there is no reason why the KMC should not sanction the building plan in question. Contention of the State Government:- 11. The petitioners submit that since the requirement of NOC stands waived by reason of non-response of the competent authority to the petitioner's application for NOC, there is no reason why the KMC should not sanction the building plan in question. Contention of the State Government:- 11. In its affidavit affirmed on 5th June, 2015, the stand of the State Government is as follows:- "(a) The petitioners have not disclosed the Plot Nos. which consist of premises No. 761, Madurdaha, Calcutta 700107. However, it appears from a copy of the writ petition that the character of different plots of land being Plot No. 455 and 457 of Mouza Madurdaha is 'Bill' which means tank and not Sali or solid land. (b) The Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 is not applicable to such land as per Section 2(q) of the said Act. (c) The West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 applies to the concerned plots of land as per Section 1(2) of the said Act. (d) Since the Urban Land Ceiling Act does not apply, the question of issuing NOC by the competent authority does not arise. Hence, Rule 4(4) is also not applicable. (e) Sanction of building plan is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Authority. However, the KMC while considering the building plan will possibly have to take into consideration Section 4(C) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 in the context of Section 396(2)(a) of the KMC Act. (f) The interest of the State is involved in respect of the mode of user of the lands in question. Such right of the State is recognised by Section 4(C) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act." 12. Appearing for the State of West Bengal, the Ld. Adv. General referred to Section 1(2) of the KMC Act which states that the Act applies only to Calcutta. He then referred to Section 2(q) of the KMC Act which defines Calcutta as the area described in Schedule I to the said Act. Schedule I includes Madurdaha. Appearing for the State of West Bengal, the Ld. Adv. General referred to Section 1(2) of the KMC Act which states that the Act applies only to Calcutta. He then referred to Section 2(q) of the KMC Act which defines Calcutta as the area described in Schedule I to the said Act. Schedule I includes Madurdaha. He then referred to Section 1(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 which states that the Act extends to the whole of West Bengal except the area described in Schedule 1 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 but not excepting the area included in the said Schedule which, immediately before the coming into force of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1983 was comprised in the municipality of Jadavpur, South Suburban or Garden Reach. He submitted that Madurdaha was included in Schedule I to the KMC Act by the KMC (Amendment) Act, 1983. Prior thereto Madurdaha was comprised in the municipality of Jadavpur. Thus, going by Section 1(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, the said Act applies to Madurdaha. 13. Since the West Bengal Land Reforms Act applies to Madurdaha, Section 4C of the said Act comes into play. Character of the land in question being 'bil' or tank, no construction can be made thereon without obtaining conversion thereof from the Collector under Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. 14. The Ld. Adv. General then submitted that the Urban Land Ceiling Act has no manner of application to the land in question. The said Act covers land in an urban agglomeration. The object of the said Act is to impose a ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomeration and to regulate construction of building on such land. Since the land in question is in the nature of 'bil' or tank, as described in the record of rights, it cannot be part of urban agglomeration and as such does not come within the purview of Section 2(q) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act which defines vacant land. In this connection the Ld. Adv. General relied on a decision of this court in the case of Sanat Kumar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1994 Cal 139 . At paragraph 9 of the judgment it has been held that 'tank' does not come within the mischief of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. In this connection the Ld. Adv. General relied on a decision of this court in the case of Sanat Kumar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1994 Cal 139 . At paragraph 9 of the judgment it has been held that 'tank' does not come within the mischief of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. It is not a land within the meaning of Section 2(o) and Section 2(q)(i) of the Act. He also relied on a decision of this court in the case of Ramendra Kumar Banerjee v. Deputy Secretary (Government of West Bengal), Land and Land Reforms Department reported in AIR 1986 Cal 85 in which the Ld. Judge held that 'land' does not include 'tank'. 15. The Ld. Adv. General then referred to Section 396(2)(a) of the KMC Act, 1980 which provides that the sanction of a building or a work may be refused on the ground that the building or the work or the use of the site for the building or the work or any of the particulars comprised in the site plan, ground plan, elevation, section or subsection would contravene the provisions of the KMC Act or the Rules and Regulations made thereunder or of any other law for the time being in force. He also referred to Section 599 of the KMC Act, 1980 which states that save as otherwise provided in that Act, nothing contained in that Act shall be construed to authorise the corporation or any municipal authority or any officer or other employee of the corporation to disregard any law for the time being in force. Relying on these two sections he submitted that even though NOC from competent authority is not required since the Urban Land Ceiling Act does not apply to the land in question, the West Bengal Land Reforms Act applies and the KMC cannot sanction the building plan in question in disregard of the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. In other words, unless and until the petitioners get the land in question converted from tank to bastu or homestead land by obtaining permission from the Collector under Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, the KMC cannot sanction the building plan in question. Contention of KMC:- 16. In other words, unless and until the petitioners get the land in question converted from tank to bastu or homestead land by obtaining permission from the Collector under Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, the KMC cannot sanction the building plan in question. Contention of KMC:- 16. Nothing has been submitted on behalf of KMC excepting what has been stated in the affidavit affirmed on its behalf wherein the stand taken is that it could not sanction the building plan in question in the absence of NOC from the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Petitioner's Reply:- 17. Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that KMC is the sanctioning authority and none of the points urged on behalf of the State Government has been argued on behalf of KMC. Hence, such points should not be taken into consideration at all. 18. There is no statement in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government that Madurdaha was previously within Jadavpur Municipality. Prior to being included in Schedule I to the KMC Act, Madurdaha was, in fact, within the Haltu Anchal Panchayat. As such the West Bengal Land Reforms Act has no manner of application to the land in question. 19. It is also incorrect to state that the land in question is in the nature of 'bil' or tank. In the Municipal Assessment Book of KMC, the land in question is described as 'vacant land'. In the mutation certificates issued by the KMC also, the land in question is described as 'vacant land'. 20. Mr. Mitra submitted that the State Government has no locus standi in the matter and the submissions made on its behalf should not be taken into account. He submitted that sanction of building plan is regulated by statute and Rules framed thereunder. Construction of building on one's land is a mode of enjoyment of the property which cannot be interfered with except with due authority of law. Section 396 of the KMC Act, 1980 enumerates the grounds on which sanction of a building plan can be refused. In this connection he relied on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority v. Smt. Ratna Banerjee reported in 1995 (1) CHN 383 . Section 396 of the KMC Act, 1980 enumerates the grounds on which sanction of a building plan can be refused. In this connection he relied on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority v. Smt. Ratna Banerjee reported in 1995 (1) CHN 383 . At paragraph 19 of the judgment this court held that the Municipal Commissioner may refuse to sanction a building plan under Section 396 of the KMC Act only when the grounds enumerated in Clauses (a) to (f) of Section 396(2) of the KMC Act exist. If these grounds are not found existing in a building plan, the Municipal Commissioner will have no other option but to sanction the building plan. 21. Mr. Mitra further submitted that the Municipality is a constitutional institution constituted under Article 243Q of the Constitution. Article 243P(e) of the Constitution defines 'municipality' as an institution of self-Government constituted under Article 243Q. Article 243R of the Constitution does not envisage the KMC to be a body subservient to the State Government. Article 243W(a)(ii) of the Constitution authorises the State legislature and not the State Government to confer the power upon the municipalities to regulate use and construction of land by legislation. Accordingly, the State legislature has enacted KMC Act, 1980 conferring the power upon KMC to sanction building plans with limitation and the power of refusal to sanction. The State Executives are acting contrary to the KMC Act and are trying to illegally impose their views on KMC. Mr. Mitra pointed out that the State Government at para 5(e) of its affidavit-in-opposition has admitted that sanction of building plan is within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Authority. 22. Mr. Mitra also relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Ram Nath Mehra v. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation reported in 1988 (1) CJL 295 in support of his contention that non-submission of NOC from the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act is not a ground to refuse sanction of a building plan. 23. Mr. Mitra submitted that the KMC is bound by its own records. In the Assessment Registrar of KMC the subject premises is recorded as 'vacant land' and not as 'tank'. KMC has accordingly raised property tax bill at the rate of Rs. 23. Mr. Mitra submitted that the KMC is bound by its own records. In the Assessment Registrar of KMC the subject premises is recorded as 'vacant land' and not as 'tank'. KMC has accordingly raised property tax bill at the rate of Rs. 16,15,222/- per quarter under Section 174(2) of the KMC Act and realised quarterly tax amounts from the petitioners who are recorded owners. Had the land been covered by the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, the tax would have been much less and in the region of Rs. 17,000/- per quarter. KMC has not taken the stand that West Bengal Land Reforms Act is applicable to the subject property. Hence, the plea of tank and conversion under Section 4C of the WBLR Act are not relevant in this case. 24. Mr. Mitra next submitted that only a bald statement has been made in paragraph 5(c) of the State's affidavit-in-opposition to the effect that the West Bengal Land Reforms Act applies to the land in question. The said statement has been verified 'true to my information derived from the records of the case.' The source of alleged knowledge is record but no record has been disclosed or even referred to in the said affidavit. The allegation is without foundation and no cognizance can be taken thereof. In this connection he relied on Order 6, Rule 15 of the CPC. He also referred to Rules 15 to 39 of the Rules relating to applications under Article 226 of the Constitution which pertain to verification of averments made in a writ petition and connected pleadings. 25. Mr. Mitra then submitted that the record of rights which is being relied upon by the State Government was prepared way back in 1955 even before the West Bengal Land Reforms Act came into force on 30th March, 1956. Section 51 of the WBLR Act contemplates revision and preparation of the record of rights and Section 51A of the Act pertains to draft and final publication of the record of rights. No such record of rights was prepared under the WBLR Act and as such the question of revision does not arise. 26. Mr. Section 51 of the WBLR Act contemplates revision and preparation of the record of rights and Section 51A of the Act pertains to draft and final publication of the record of rights. No such record of rights was prepared under the WBLR Act and as such the question of revision does not arise. 26. Mr. Mitra then referred to a Division Bench decision of this court in the case of Smt. Srila Moitra v. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1981 Cal 126 wherein at paragraph 8 of the judgment it has been observed that tank includes land and in ordinary sense tank is land. He submitted that the subsequent judgments in the cases of Ramendra Kumar Banerjee (supra) and Sanat Kumar Mukherjee (supra) are per incuriam. States Government's reply to the reply of the petitioners:- 27. As regards alleged improper verification of the statement in the affidavit-in-opposition of the State Government to the effect that the WBLR Act applies to the subject premises, the Ld. Addl. Adv. General submitted that this is a point of law and as such no question of improper verification can arise. He submitted that Rules 15 and 19 of the Writ Rules pertains to factual assertions. 28. As regards the record of rights not being updated, he submitted that the process is continuing. Whatever is recorded therein is final. To change the status of a land, application has to be made to the Collector. 29. The Ld. Addl. Adv. General then referred to pages 40 to 43 of the affidavit-in-reply of the petitioners to the State's affidavit-in-opposition, which are documents from the department of Fisheries, Government of West Bengal. He submitted that although such documents show that the petitioner's land is presently concrete land, that does not obviate the necessity of going through the process of conversion since the WBLR Act applies. 30. Mr. Gupta further submitted that the KMC is not the supreme authority. It has no power of legislation. It has to be endowed with power. The KMC authority is bound not only by the KMC Act and the Rules framed thereunder but is also bound by the other laws for the time being in force by virtue of Section 396(2)(a) of the KMC Act read with Section 599 thereof. The 'other laws' would include the WBLR Act. Court's View:- 31. The KMC authority is bound not only by the KMC Act and the Rules framed thereunder but is also bound by the other laws for the time being in force by virtue of Section 396(2)(a) of the KMC Act read with Section 599 thereof. The 'other laws' would include the WBLR Act. Court's View:- 31. Although the arguments have been advanced at length on diverse legal points, the issue that falls for determination by this court is a short one i.e. whether or not the petitioners are entitled to have their building plan sanctioned by the KMC. 32. Simply put, the contention of the petitioners is that there is no legitimate reason for the KMC to withhold sanction of the building plan in question. Even assuming that the Urban Land Ceiling Act applies to the concerned land, the requirement of NOC from the competent authority under the said Act is deemed to have been waived upon the failure of the competent authority to furnish certificate within three months from the date of application made by the petitioners. There is no dispute that the petitioners had applied for NOC before the competent authority on 13th October, 2014. Hence, after 13th January, 2015 there could be no impediment to grant any sanction to the building plan in question. Further, none of the grounds mentioned in Section 396 of the KMC Act, 1980 for rejection of a building plan exists in the facts of the case. 33. On the other hand, the short contention of the State Government is that the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 applies to the land in question. In the record of rights, the land is described as 'bil' or tank. Hence, until proper conversion of the land is obtained from the Collector under Section 4C of the WBLR Act, the KMC should not sanction the building plan in question. Section 396(2)(a) and Section 599 of the KMC Act, 1980 enjoins on the KMC a duty not to disregard the provisions of any other law for the time being in force and this would include the WBLR Act. 34. I have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties. There is no doubt that sanction of building plan is a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the KMC. There is no dispute that the KMC Act applies to Madurdaha. 34. I have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties. There is no doubt that sanction of building plan is a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the KMC. There is no dispute that the KMC Act applies to Madurdaha. Schedule I to the KMC Act which defines the geographical contours of Calcutta includes Madurdaha. Such inclusion took place in 1983 by way of KMC (Amendment) Act, 1983. As per Section 1(2) of the WBLR Act, 1955, the Act extends the whole of West Bengal except the area described in Schedule I of the KMC Act, 1980 but not excepting the area included in the said Schedule which, immediately before the coming into force of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1983, was comprised in the Municipality of Jadavpur, South Suburban or Garden Reach. In other words, if prior to the coming into force of the CMC (Amendment) Act, 1983 whereby Madurdaha was included in Schedule I to the KMC Act, 1980, Madurdaha was comprised in the municipality of Jadavpur or South Suburban or Garden Reach, then the WBLR Act, 1955 would apply to Madurdaha. However, if Madurdaha was not comprised in any one of the aforesaid three municipalities prior to its inclusion in Schedule I to the KMC Act, 1980, the WBLR Act, 1955 would have no manner of application to the land in question which is situated in Madurdaha. 35. A bald statement has been made by the State Government in its affidavit that the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 applies to the concerned plot of land. No document in support of such statement has been produced. There is also no specific assertion that Madurdaha was comprised in one of the three municipalities i.e. Jadvpur, South Suburban or Garden Reach, prior to Madurdaha being included in Schedule I to the KMC Act, 1980. 36. On the other hand, the petitioners have annexed to their affidavit-in-reply copy of the registered deed of purchase of the property in question which clearly mentions that the property is situated within the area of Haltu Gram Panchayat. Authenticity of this document has not been disputed by the Ld. Adv. General appearing for the State Government. In other words, prior to its inclusion in Schedule I to the KMC Act, 1980, Madurdaha was not comprised in any of the aforesaid three municipalities i.e. Jadavpur, South Suburban or Garden Reach. Authenticity of this document has not been disputed by the Ld. Adv. General appearing for the State Government. In other words, prior to its inclusion in Schedule I to the KMC Act, 1980, Madurdaha was not comprised in any of the aforesaid three municipalities i.e. Jadavpur, South Suburban or Garden Reach. Hence, the WBLR Act, 1955 would have no application to the land in question which is undisputedly situated in Madurdaha. 37. Further, the Urban Land Ceiling Act has been made applicable to the whole of the State of West Bengal as per Section 1(2) of the said Act. The Act is applicable to the entire Kolkata Municipal Corporation area. Madurdaha is undisputedly within the Kolkata Municipal Corporation area and as such the Urban Land Ceiling Act applies to Madurdaha. In the case of Paschimbanga Bhumijibi Krishak Samiti v. State of West Bengal reported in 1996 (2) CLT 183, a Division Bench of this court held at paragraph 51 of the judgment that the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act have no application in respect of matters covered by the Urban Land Ceiling Act excepting in relation to agricultural land. It is nobody's case that the land in question is agricultural land. In the Municipal Assessment Book of the KMC as also in the mutation certificates issued by the KMC, the land in question has been described as 'vacant land'. The record of rights referred to by the State Government is of dubious reliability. Such record was prepared in 1955 and preparation or revision of record of rights as contemplated by Section 51 and 51A of the WBLR Act never seems to have been undertaken. 38. For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the view that the WBLR Act, 1955 does not apply to Madurdaha where the land in question is situated. 39. I am also in agreement with the contention of Mr. Anindya Mitra, Ld. Sr. Counsel that the KMC is the supreme authority for granting or refusing sanction of a building plan in respect of land to which the KMC Act, 1980 applies. The grounds for refusing sanction have been mentioned in Section 396 of the KMC Act, 1980. It is not the stand of KMC that any of such grounds for refusing sanction exists in so far the building plan in question is concerned. The State Government really has no say in the matter. The grounds for refusing sanction have been mentioned in Section 396 of the KMC Act, 1980. It is not the stand of KMC that any of such grounds for refusing sanction exists in so far the building plan in question is concerned. The State Government really has no say in the matter. Since the requirement of NOC from the competent authority is deemed to have been waived after three months from the date of application, to my mind, there can be no reason for the KMC to withhold sanction of the building plan in question. The municipal authority has to act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the parent statute and they cannot refuse sanction of a building plan if the conditions prescribed in the statute and the rules framed thereunder are satisfied. 40. The State Government has no role to play in the matter of granting or withholding sanction to a building plan in respect of land to which KMC Act, 1980 applies. Such matter is within the exclusive domain of the KMC. In my opinion, in the facts of the case, the State Government is illegally purporting to impose its view on the KMC, which view, in my opinion is not tenable in law. In any event, KMC having been vested with the exclusive power and authority in the matter of grant or refusal of sanction to a building plan, KMC must come to an independent decision in such matter uninfluenced by extraneous factors or decisions of other authorities. The KMC must not act as per the dictates of the State Government in the matter of granting or refusing sanction to the building plan in question. That would amount to unlawful abdication of its power in favour of the State Government, which cannot be countenanced in law. 41. For the reasons afore stated, this writ application succeeds. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation is directed to sanction the building plan in question subject to the same being in compliance with the provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and the rules framed thereunder including the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 2009, within a period of four weeks from date. 42. This writ application is, thus, disposed of without, however, any order as to costs. 43. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.