D/L. 57 19.08.2026 Ct No. 2 Mujahid CO 962 of 2021 Sri Bejoy Raghabji Thakurji, a religious Trust of Ayodhya VS Mousumi Ghosh & Anr. Mr. R.N. Chakraborty Ms. Amrita De Mr. R. Singh …for the petitioner Mr. Bratin Kr. Dey Mr. Jaydeep Das …for the opposite party no.1 1. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12th November, 2018 whereby the Municipal Building Tribunal, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in Appeal No.12/17 rejected the application of the petitioner for impleading the as party. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a tenant of the trust. Petitioner/ trust is represented by Sheo Pujan Tripathi and the trust is the owner of the premises. Learned counsel submits that since the petitioner raised unauthorized construction, a complaint was filed before the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Special Officer (Bldg), KMC in the matter of KMC vs. Mrs. Pusparani Ghosh in demolition proceedings under Section 400(1) of the 2 KMC Act, 1980. Vide order dated 5th January, 2017 after giving both the parties an opportunity of being heard and taking into account the order of this Court passed on 16th November, 2016 in WP No. 24016(W) of 2016, the opposite party herein, that is, private respondent was directed to demolish the unauthorized construction made on her part in the premises within 15 days. In default, the KMC was given liberty to demolish the same at the cost and risk of the private respondent. The owner of the premises was also directed to demolish the remaining unauthorized construction within 15 days from the date of communication of the order and in default, the KMC authority was given liberty to demolish the same at the risk and cost of the owner of the premises. 3. This order was challenged by the opposite party herein before the learned Municipal Building Tribunal, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in B.T. Appeal No.12 of 2017 wherein the owner of the premises, that is, the petitioner/trust was not made a party. The petitioner moved an application dated 23rd February, 2018 for impleading it as party, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 12th November, 2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Tribunal is totally erroneous. Learned counsel submits that the 3 opposite party herein is enjoying the stay order granted by the appellate tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that prayer of the petitioner was rejected as they failed to file necessary original documents in their favour as trustee and the relevant directions and orders chronologically in terms of the order of the Tribunal dated 20th August, 2018. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, therefore submits that there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Learned for the petitioner undertakes that the trust shall file all the requisite documents before the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel further submits that an appropriate order may be passed for the expeditious hearing of the appeal No.12 of 2017 by the tribunal in accordance with law after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard. 6. The court has considered the submissions. Upon consideration of the entire materials on record, the Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal. The petitioner shall file the documents in terms of the order dated 20th August, 2018 before the learned Tribunal without seeking any adjournment. Learned Tribunal shall fix the appeal within two weeks of the receipt of communication of this order. Both the parties shall 4 appear before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal shall decide the appeal preferably within a period of four months in accordance with law after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard. The contention regarding requirement of rubber stamp as directed by the Tribunal in the order dated 20th August, 2018 is left open to be considered by the learned Tribunal in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the revision petition stands disposed of. 8. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)