[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Atia Shaheen vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors on 12 February, 2026
OD-05
WPO/58/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
Atia Shaheen
Versus
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Before:
The Hon'ble Justice RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY
Date: 12th February 2025
Appearance:
Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate
Ms. Debangana Dey, Advocate
Ms. Subhasni Chatterjee, Advocate
Mr. Amaan Deep Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, Advocate
Ms. Priyanka Jana, Advocate
for the KMC
The Court: 1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia,
challenging the notice issued under section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal
Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") dated
22nd August 2025. The petitioner also challenges the proceeding initiated
for demolition before the Special Officer (Building).
2. It is the petitioner's case that the petitioner had started
constructing at premises no.16, Raja Dinendra Street, Ward - 28,
Borough - IV, Kolkata pursuant to a sanctioned building plan issued by
the municipal authorities. It is not in dispute that in the instant case the
municipal authorities having detected that the petitioner has deviated
from the sanctioned building plan, had issued a stop work notice on 22 nd
August 2025.
WPO/58/2026
3. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate representing the
municipality has placed before this Court a report duly counter-signed
amongst other by the Executive Engineer (C)/Building/Br-IV dated 5 th
February 2026. According to the said report, a plan was sanctioned by
the department in respect of the premises no. 18, Raja Dinendra Street,
Ward - 28, Borough - IV, Kolkata on 17th March 2008 for erection of a
four storied building which is situated on the northern side of the
premises no. 16, Raja Dinendra Street, Kolkata. In the sanctioned plan of
premises no.18, Raja Dinendra Street it was observed that a strip of land
was gifted to Kolkata Municipal Corporation on the southern side of
premises no.18, Raja Dinendra Street (in-between the premises no. 16 &
18, Raja Dinendra Street) for widening of the common passage and
provided splayed corner as shown in the sanctioned plan. Incidentally,
though, in respect of the premises no. 16, Raja Dinendra Street a
building plan dated 7th November 2022 was sanctioned and later since it
was noticed that the construction was going in deviation of the
sanctioned plan by encroaching the common passage, the department
had issued a stop work notice under section 401 of the said Act on 22 nd
August 2025. Due intimation in that regard was also provided to the
Narkeldanga Police Station by a letter dated 23 rd August 2025.
4. Later in course of hearing in the chamber of Addl. Municipal
Commissioner on 15th October 2025, the person responsible for
construction of 16, Raja Dinendra Street had agreed to leave a passage at
northern side, unfortunately, no such passage was left. During routine
inspection on 21st November 2025 it was observed that the person
WPO/58/2026
responsible had started the construction work defying the stop work
notice under section 401 of the said Act and casted cantilever portion at
the first floor level all around the building thereby, deviating further from
the sanctioned plan. Accordingly, an F.I.R. under Section 401(A) of the
said Act dated 22nd November, 2025 was lodged following which a
demolition sketch was prepared and placed before the higher authority
for process.
5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective
parties and having regard to the peculiar facts as noted hereinabove, I am of
the view that there is no scope for this Court to grant any relief to the
petitioner at this stage. Admittedly, since the petitioner has acted de hors
the sanctioned building plan and has also encroached upon the public road,
the municipality should take immediate steps to remove the encroachment
from the public road in accordance with law, and file a detailed report
before the Registrar, Original Side of this Court within a period of eight
weeks from the date of communication of this order. The report must
contain the photographs of the offending portion as also the removal
thereof. Once, the report is filed, the Registrar, Original Side shall tag such
report with the file.
6. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
7. There shall be no order as to costs.
(RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.)
R. Bose/akg
