IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay WPO 1082 of 2013 Smt. Rita Mitra Vs.

Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. Senior Adv.

: Ms. Sonal Saha, Adv.

: Mr. Aniket Chowdhury, Adv.

For the KMC : Mr. Barin Banerjee, Adv.

: Mr. Debangshu Mondal, Adv.

: Ms. Manisha Nath, Adv.

For the respondent/State : Ms. Sipra Majumdar, Adv.

: Ms. Debarati Sen (Bose), Adv.

For the respondent nos. 9 & 10 : Mr. Debangsu Dinda, Adv.

For the respondent nos. 11, 12A

12B & 12C : Mr. Sandip Ghosh, Adv.

: Mr. Subrata Das, Adv.

: Mr. Debayan Ghosh, Adv.

Judgment on : 25/07/2025 Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-

(1) The writ petitioner is the purchaser/owner of the Flats No. 1A (purchased on July 26, 2004) and 1B (purchased on March 04, 2009) at the premises No. P-20A, Scheme X M, C.I.T. Road, Kolkata-700010.

(2) The writ petitioner is aggrieved with regard to regularization of the constructions made at the ground floor of the said building by the respondent/Special Officer (Building), KMC vide order dated September 9, 2010. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the said order of the Special Officer (Building), KMC dated September 9, 2010.

(3) Before going into the findings of the Special Officer (Building) in the impugned order and adjudicating its merits and demerits, it is necessary that background facts of the case may be stated in brief which is as follows:- (4) The building as above, is a G+3 residential building comprised with several residential units/flats. The plan of the building was sanctioned on July 16, 1999. The writ petitioner along with her husband (now deceased), initially purchased flat 1A and thereafter from the respondent no. 12, the flat 1B. Since thereafter, she has been owning and residing in the said property.

(5) The petitioner has alleged that for the first time on March 26, 2010 she noticed that, covering the open space between the building and the boundary wall a tin shaded construction of 40 square feet was built. The construction was made attached to her veranda wall. According to the petitioner, the tin shaded construction was covering a portion of the open car parking space of the said premises. The petitioner says that the tin shaded construction of 40 square feet was put up by the respondents No. 11 and 12 for setting up of a medicine shop by the respondent no. 12. Hence, finding such construction done by the said respondents in an irregular and illegal manner which may not be commensurate to the plan sanctioned for the said building by the respondent Authority, the petitioner has lodged complaints before various Authorities on various dates. The petitioner has also lodged General Diary before the police on March 30, 2010.

(6) Pursuant to the complaint lodged by the petitioner on March 29, 2010, the Executive Engineer, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, Building Department, Borough - III had issued a “Stop Work Notice” under Section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 on March 30, 2010. However, allegedly the illegal construction work by the respondents No. 11- 12 did not stop, leading to the petitioner to file a detailed complaint before the concerned Authority. Her grievances having not been mitigated in spite of the same, the writ petitioner made her complaint before the local Councillor on June 06, 2010.

(7) On August 16, 2010, the petitioner received a notice of hearing issued by the Special Officer (Building)/respondent no. 6. In compliance thereof, the petitioner appeared before the respondent no. 6 for hearing on August 31, 2010. According to the petitioner, since thereafter, neither any further notice was issued by the said respondent Authority nor any hearing was conducted by him on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner. On the other hand, since the respondents as above, was not restrained by the respondent municipal Authorities, they not only had proceeded with the illegal co