IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
GAURANG KANTH, J.
Rukhsana Hamid – Petitioner
Versus
State Of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
WPA 18238 of 2024 with WPA 20449 of 2024
Decided On : 13-08-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against demolition order context (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. unauthorized construction complaints to municipality (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. petitioner’s ownership claim and context (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. procedural violations in passing demolition order (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. respondent’s arguments supporting demolition order validity (Para 18 , 20 , 22) |
| 6. delegation of powers under municipal law (Para 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 7. interpretation of statutes regarding powers (Para 34 , 36 , 39) |
| 8. ruling on unauthorized construction (Para 45 , 46) |
| 9. final ruling on writ petitions (Para 47 , 48 , 49) |
JUDGMENT :
Gaurang Kanth, J.
1. The demolition order dated 04.03.2024 having Memo No. 3049/(12)/PW/Eng/24 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Asanasol Municipal Corporation in connection with demolition of a certain portion of the Nuruddin House having JL No. 20, Mouza Asanasol Municipality is in consideration in both these matters. In WPA 20449/2024, the Petitioner is challenging the said demolition order where as in 18238/2024, the Petitioner is seeking the implementation of the said demolition order. Hence this Court decided to dispose of both these matters with a common order.
Facts as per WPS 18238/2024
2. The Petitioner claims to be one of the co-sharers of the premises in question. Her case is that one Nuruddin Mistry was the original owner of certain plots of land situated under Mouza- Asansol Municipality, JL No. 20, recorded in Khatian Nos. 8860, 8861, 8862, 13588, 13589, 10793, 10794, 10795, 10796, 10797, 10798, 8866, 8867, 8869, 8870, 8871, 8873–8877, 22250, 22242, 22256, 22255, 22251, 22241, 22243, 22252, and 22254. The Petitioner is one of the successors-in-interest of the late Shri Nuruddin Mistry. Nuruddin House is constructed over the said property. After the death of Nuruddin Mistry, a partition suit, being Title Suit No. 92 of 2023, was instituted and is presently pending before the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Asansol, among the legal heirs of the said late Nuruddin Mistry.
3. The Petitioner in WPA No. 18238 of 2024 (Rukhsana Hamid), contends that private respondents Nos. 6 and 7, namely Abdulla Zakaria and Sulaiman Zakaria, commenced unauthorised construction over a portion of the aforesaid property without obtaining any valid sanctioned building plan. Accordingly, she lodged a complaint dated 29.12.2023 before the Mayor, Asansol Municipal Corporation. Pursuant to the said complaint, officials of the Respondent Municipality carried out a spot inspection and issued a “work stop” notice dated 09.01.2024 against the said private respondents.
4. Despite the issuance of the said notice, Abdulla Zakaria and Sulaiman Zakaria continued with the unauthorised construction. Consequently, the Petitioner lodged another complaint dated 12.02.2024. The Assistant Engineer, Asansol Municipal Corporation, by letter dated 17.02.2024, informed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central), Asansol–Durgapur Police Commissionerate, to take appropriate action against the said private respondents.
5. A hearing was thereafter conducted by the Respondent Municipality on 20.02.2024, which was attended by both the Petitioner and the private respondents. As no sanctioned building plan was produced by the private respondents, the Respondent Municipality passed a demolition order dated 04.03.2024, directing the said private respondents to demolish the unauthorised construction within seven days, failing of which the demolition would be carried out by the Municipality itself.
6. Notwithstanding the passing of the demolition order dated 04.03.2024, no demolition was carried out, either by the private respondents or by the Respondent Municipality. The Petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 29.05.2025, requesting implementation of the said demolition order.
7. Aggrieved by the continued inaction of the Respondent Municipality in enforcing the demolition order dated 04.03.2024, the Petitioner has prefe
Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar v. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund
J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd. v. State of U.P.
The Superintendent Engineer validly issued a demolition order under delegated authority, despite challenges regarding notice and natural justice, affirming the necessity of judicial efficiency in mun....
A structure without a sanctioned plan is unauthorized, irrespective of its age; such constructions cannot gain legality from their longevity.
The court affirmed that opportunities in legal proceedings must be utilized effectively, and failure to substantiate property claims does not invalidate administrative actions under Article 226.
Section 406 of Kerala Municipality Act reads as Demolition or alteration of building work unlawfully commenced, carried on or completed.
The court emphasized the necessity of proper notice and adherence to procedural safeguards in administrative actions affecting property rights, ruling the demolition illegal due to failure to follow ....
Proper service of notice under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act can be achieved through speed post, satisfying statutory requirements for natural justice.
The court reaffirmed the principle that unauthorized constructions threaten public safety, necessitating swift enforcement of demolition orders under local municipal law.
The court emphasized that demolition orders under the West Bengal Panchayat Act must come from authorized bodies, prohibiting post facto sanctions for unauthorized constructions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.