16.02.2026 sb Ct.3.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 9023 of 2025 Shanti Basak @ Shanti Rani Basak Versus The Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Mr. Indranil Halder … For the petitioner Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay Mr. Tirthankar Dey Mr. Arka Kumar Nag … For Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation Mr. Arnab Roy Mr. Saibal Rakshit Mr. Supriyo Das … For the respondent nos. 5 and 6

1. Complaining illegal construction at Mouza- Krishnapur, J.L. No. 17, Khaitan no. 267, Dag No. 3564 under Ward No. 25, under Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation, P.S. Baguiati, District 24 Parganas (North), the instant writ petition has been filed.

2. According to the case made out by the petitioner, the petitioner is the owner in respect of the aforesaid land and had acquired interest therein on the basis of the registered deed of sale dated 3rd May, 1991.

3. The petitioner would complain that the respondent nos. 5 and 6 have been constructing on the municipality.

4. Mr. Roy, learned advocate representing the respondent nos. 5 and 6 would submit that there is a civil dispute pending between the petitioner on the one hand and the respondent nos. 5 and 6 on the other. He, however, could not enlighten this Court as to whether any construction has taken place at the property in question.

5. Mr. Nag, learned advocate representing the municipality would submit that noting complaints made by the petitioner, the municipality had promptly acted and had issued a notice of stop work. Subsequently, a proceeding under the provisions of Section 266 of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) had been initiated. The parties have been heard and the hearing in relation to the above proceeding has already been concluded. According to him, the matter is now pending for orders before the Commissioner, Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation.

6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner that a G+4 storied building has already come up at the locale, this Court is of the view that the municipality should file a report before this Court as to how and under what circumstances the construction of G+4 storied building could take place without sanctioned building plan.

7. Let such report as directed be filed on or before the matter is taken up next.

8. Pendency of the writ petition shall not stand in the way of the municipality from bringing the proceeding initiated by them to a logical conclusion.

9. List this matter for further consideration in the Combined Monthly List of April, 2026.

10. In the interregnum, the municipality must carry out an inspection upon notice to the parties and file a detailed report before this Court as regards the extent of construction carried out and the state at which the construction at present stands. Coloured photographs of the building in question should also be included in the above report. The municipality must ensure that the building is not occupied pending further decision by the municipal authorities.

11. It is made clear since, the learned advocate for the private respondents has failed to disclose any authority to construct on the above plot, the constructed portions of the property shall not be dealt without express leave of this Court.

12. Since, Mr. Nag, learned advocate representing the municipality would insist that appropriate direction should also be issued on the police authorities for implementation of the stop work notice, I am of the view, in the event any requisition is made by the municipality, the jurisdictional police station shall act on the basis of such requisition.

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)