Court emphasized the administrative duty to enforce demolition orders and clarified that prior case dismissals did not preclude fresh petitions on similar grounds.

….......…………for the KMC JUDGMENT Gaurang Kanth, J. :-

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities in failing to initiate or take effective and timely steps to halt or demolish an unauthorized construction allegedly undertaken by the private respondent on a plot situated at Mouza–Jalalkhabar, J.L. No. 310, Dag No. 301.

2. Despite repeated complaints, the respondent authorities have not taken any steps either to stop the unauthorized construction or to demolish the same.

Pursuant to the direction of this Hon’ble Court, the respondent municipality has submitted a report, which categorically admits that the private respondent has raised construction in violation of the provisions of the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) Scheme. It is further stated in the report that a demolition notice under Section 218 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 was issued on 13.07.2021, directing the private respondent to remove the unauthorized structure within seven days, failing which the municipality would proceed with the demolition at the violator’s cost.

3. The municipality has also admitted that the private respondent had encroached upon a public pathway by dumping construction materials, for which a separate notice was issued on 09.11.2022, directing removal of the obstruction.

Additionally, a work stop notice dated 19.11.2022 was issued.

4. Bare perusal of the report reveals a grossly negligent and lackadaisical approach adopted by the respondent authorities. The report, filed in compliance with the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by this Court, is based solely on an inspection conducted in the year 2019. No subsequent inspection has been carried out. Although a demolition order was passed on 13.07.2021, it is evident that no steps have been taken to enforce the same. As a result, the private respondent has continued with the unauthorized construction unabated.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the private respondent submits that the construction in question has been undertaken pursuant to a valid sanctioned building plan. He further contends that the present writ petition is barred by the principles of res judicata, this being the third round of litigation. He refers to W.P. No. 12693 (W) of 2019, which was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 12.07.2019, wherein the Court directed the authorities to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 24.04.2019 within four weeks from the date of communication of the order, after giving both the petitioner and the private respondent an opportunity of hearing. Pursuant to that order, an inspection was carried out on 16.08.2019 in respect of Plot No. 301, Mouza–Jalalkhabar, Ward No. 14, where unauthorized construction by the private respondent was noted. A work stop notice was thereafter issued, and notices of hearing were served on all parties on 07.01.2021. Subsequently, a demolition order was passed by the Board of Administrators on 13.07.2021. The private respondent states that he did not challenge the said demolition order due to his illiteracy and financial hardship. Following continued inaction by the municipality, the petitioner filed WPA 26298 of 2022, which was dismissed for default. Learned Counsel for the private respondent reiterates that the present writ petition is barred by res judicata.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent municipality submits that after conducting due inspection with the assistance of the surveyor from the BL&LRO, a demolition order dated 13.07.2021 was indeed issued. However, he is unable to explain why the said order has not yet been im