[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Surajit Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 29 January, 2026
OD-08
WPO/639/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Surajit Roy
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Before:
The Hon'ble Justice RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY
Date: 29th January 2026
Appearance:
Mr. Jishnu Chowdjury, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Pratiti Das, Adv.
Ms. Arifa Sultana, Adv.
....for the petitioner
Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Jana, Adv.
...for the State
Mr. Gopal Chandra Das, Adv.
Ms. Susmita Chatterjee, Adv.
....for the KMC
Mr. Arindam Banerjee, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Mahashree Ghosh, Adv.
Ms. Anamika Bari, Adv.
....for the respondent nos.11, 12 & 13
Later
The Court: 1. This matter has a chequered history. The
petitioner in the instant writ petition had previously approached this
Court in WPO/563/2024 complaining illegal construction at premises
no. 1, Beadon Street, Kolkata - 700 006 whereupon a coordinate Bench
of this Court by order dated 30th July 2024 appointed a Special Officer
having regard to the submission made by the Corporation that the
unauthorised construction carried out by the private respondents had
already been demolished. Accordingly the Special Officer was directed to
visit the premises upon notice to the parties and to file a report
indicating whether the private respondents were carrying out any
unauthorised construction at the said premises.
2. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Special Officer had visited
the premises in question on 8th August 2024 and had filed a report
indicating that the building in question is a G+three storeyed building,
ground and first floor are more or less according to the sanctioned plan.
On the second and third floor broken pillars were noticed. On enquiry
from Mr. Siddhartha Agarwal it appered that the pillars in the second
and third floor had been demolished in terms of the order passed by the
municipality. A copy of the above report has been placed before this
Court by the learned advocate representing the municipality, which is
taken on record. It is a matter of record that upon the aforesaid report
being filed, on 5th November 2024 the coordinate Bench of this Court,
noting that the construction had been undertaken as per the sanctioned
plan and that the unauthorised portion had been demolished, was of the
view that no further order need be passed and accordingly disposed of
the writ petition.
3. Subsequently, when it came to the notice of the petitioner that
despite demolition of the unauthorised construction, the private
respondents were once again attempting to carry out unauthorised
construction by reconstructing the pillars and columns through the open
spaces by covering the courtyard area, a complaint was lodged on 26 th
June 2025 and following the above, complaining failure on the part of the
municipal authorities to take appropriate action, the instant writ petition
was filed.
4. When the above writ petition was moved on 25 th September
2025, the learned Advocate for the Corporation sought for time to file a
report by 2 weeks. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned by granting
liberty to the Corporation to file the report in the form of affidavit. Since
the private respondents also sought leave to file affidavit, two weeks time
was granted to file the affidavit-in-opposition. Despite such direction,
neither did the Corporation file any report until this day, nor did the
private respondents file any affidavit, though extension has been sought
for today.
5. Today in the first half, the Corporation had however, filed a
report wherefrom it would transpire that a proceeding under section
400(1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act 1980 (hearing after
referred to as 'the said Act) is under process for the unauthorised
construction. The report noted that though previously the unauthorised
construction was demolished, however, the structural engineer engaged
in the construction work had submitted a structural stability certificate
wherein it was stated that RCC columns were required to strengthen the
structure for proper stability. The person responsible had applied for
regularisation. Since, there had been illegal construction, matter was
placed before the higher authority for proceeding under section 400 of
the said Act. However, since the learned advocate for the municipality
had orally submitted that notwithstanding the above, the illegally
constructed portion has already been regularised, this Court had called
for the records. Pursuant to the aforesaid, records have been produced.
6. From the records, it would transpire that on 18 th September
2025, the private respondents had applied before the municipal
authorities seeking regularisation of the unauthorised construction.
Incidentally, such fact was suppressed before this Court when the order
dated 25th September, 2025 was passed. Keeping this Hon'ble Court
completely in the dark as regards the application for regularisation, the
municipality had sought for time to file affidavit. Subsequently, without
notifying either this Hon'ble Court or the writ petitioner, the decision to
regularise the unauthorised construction had been taken on 22 nd
December 2025. It is elementary that when a contested petition of this
nature is pending and when the Court is in seisin of the matter, the
authorities ought not to have proceeded to regularise the unauthorised
construction, especially when previously, on the basis of disclosure made
in Court that the unauthorised construction had been demolished the
writ petition stood disposed of.
7. Having regard thereto, I am of the view that the order passed
by the Special Officer (Building) which was subsequently purported to be
ratified by the Mayor-in-Council of KMC on 22 nd December 2025 cannot
be acted upon at this stage. This court is also of the view that having
regard to the peculiar state of affairs prevailing, a Special Officer is
required to be appointed who shall visit the premises in question and file
a detailed report. The respondent no.7 must accompany him for the
inspection.
8. Accordingly, I appoint Mr. Sarbajit Mukherjee, Advocate of
Bar Library Club as Special Officer who shall visit the premises in
question upon notice to the advocates of the parties before the matter is
taken up next and file a detailed report before this Court when the
matter is taken up next. The Special Officer shall note down the details of
the illegal construction which has been regularised, in his report and
carry out an inventory and shall ascertain the occupants and the extent
of their occupation.
9. The petitioner shall bear the remuneration of the Special
Officer at the first instance which is fixed at 2000 GMs.
10. In response to a query from the Court, since Mr. Banerjee,
learned senior Advocate representing the private respondents would
submit that the building in question is yet to be occupied, I am of the
view that the municipality will ensure that the building is not occupied
till further orders of this Court. The municipality shall also ensure that
no further construction shall take place until further order of this Court.
11. The records placed by the municipal authorities be retained
in a sealed cover. As prayed for, parties shall be at liberty to inspect the
original records of the Corporation upon prior notice, in the presence of
the Court Assistant attached to this Court and the learned advocate for
the Corporation.
12. Since learned senior advocate for the private respondents
prays that he may be heard after he goes through the records, let this
matter appear under the same heading on 5 th February, 2026 at 12:30
P.M.
13. After the aforesaid order is passed, Mr. Banerjee, learned
senior advocate would submit that the ground floor is occupied by the
tenants, the first floor and the second floor are also partly occupied
though the occupation is only limited to carry out fitouts.
14. Accordingly, having regard to the disclosure made by Mr.
Banerjee, the Special Officer shall inventorise the entire building and
enclose photographs of each floor in his report.
(RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.)
R. Bose/akg
