The court reaffirmed the principle that unauthorized constructions threaten public safety, necessitating swift enforcement of demolition orders under local municipal law.

Judgment :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Three appeals are taken up for analogous hearing as they relate to the same immovable property, namely, Premises No.6A, Jorabagan Street, Kolkata-700006. All the three appeals are specially assigned to this Bench.

2. Of the three appeals, one is in the Original Side. In the Original Side, APO 100 of 2024 is at the behest of the owner of the premises concerned and directed against an order dated May 7, 2024 passed in WPO 393 of 2024. By the impugned order dated May 7, 2024, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant.

3. FMA 618 of 2025 is at the behest of the owner of the property and directed against orders dated March 10, 2025 and March 11, 2025 passed in WPA 5700 of 2025. MAT 771 of 2025 is again at the behest of the owner and directed against an order dated May 14, 2025 passed in WPA 5700 of 2025. By the three impugned orders involved in these two appeals learned Single Judge granted interim protection to the private respondent in respect of a subsisting order of demolition passed under Section 400(8) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, in 2015, there was a notice issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) for taking steps against the private respondents, under the provisions of Section 401(A) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 in respect of illegal and unauthorized construction carried on by the private respondents at the premises concerned. He points out that, despite the KMC authorities taking steps under Section 401 of the Act of 1980, unauthorized construction continued at the premises concerned, at the behest of the private respondents. KMC authorities lodged a complaint with the police. Appellant also complained to the KMC authorities with regard to the unauthorized construction. Thereafter, KMC authorities initiated proceedings under Section 400(8) of the Act of 1980. In such proceedings, an order of demolition was passed holding that, the entire structure was unauthorized.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant points out that, the order under Section 400(8) of the Act of 1980 is dated February 23, 2018. He refers to the averments made in the writ petition filed at the behest of the private respondents being WPA 5700 of 2025. He submits that, the averments in such writ petition will demonstrate that, the private respondents were aware of the order of demolition dated February 23, 2018. They did not take any steps with regard thereto.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, subsequent to the order of demolition being passed, part demolition was affected. Since the entire structure was not demolished, appellant filed a writ petition being WPO 393 of 2024 which was disposed of by the impugned order dated May 7, 2024.

7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the Coordinate Bench, upon appraisal of the facts issued suo moto Rule of contempt against some of the officials of KMC. Such Coordinate Bench also requested the Director, Indian Institute of Engineering, Science and Technology, Shibpur (IIEST) to submit a report with regard to the extent of demolition of the unauthoriz