SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3439

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS – Respondent
WPO 502 / 2024



##PAGE1##

OD-01

WPO/502/2024

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

ORIGINAL SIDE

Ravindra Kumar Singh & Ors.

Versus

The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Before:

The Hon’ble Justice RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY

Date: 14th May 2026

Appearance:

Mr. Deepan Kr. Sarkar, Advocate

Mr. Karanjeet Sharma, Advocate

Mr. Aditya Chakraborty, Advocate

Mr. Navneet Sewek, Advocates

Ms. Anshumala Bansal, Advocate

Mr. Shubhayan Chakraborty, Advocate

for the petitioner, Advocate

Mr. Srijan Nayak, Advocate

Ms. Sima Chakraborty, Advocate

for the KMC

Mr. Saptangsu Basu, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Syed Moyeenul. Arefin, Advocate

for the respondent no.5

Mr. Krishnaraj Thaker, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Soumyades Sinha, Advocate

Ms. Suranjana Chatterjee, Advocate

for the respondent no.6

1. The necessary authorisation issued by the respective parties that is

the petitioners and the respondent nos.5 and 6, to their learned

advocates as placed before this Court are taken on record.

2. Although the instant writ petition was filed, inter alia, praying for a

direction upon the respondent authorities to ensure that the

remedial measures are put in and/or implemented and to undo the

##PAGE2##

2

damage caused to the building of the petitioners’ premises situated

at 47B, Bondel Road, Police Station- Karaya, Kolkata – 700 019,

however the parties are now agreeable to resolve the disputes

amongst themselves.

3. In order to record the oral settlement between the parties it is

necessary to note down certain facts.

(i) The respondent no.5 is the owner of the premises no.52D,

Bondel Road, Kolkata – 700 019 which is adjacent and

contiguous to premises no.47B, Bondel Road, Kolkata.

Certain development work was undertaken in the year 2023

by the respondent no.6 at the aforesaid adjoining premises at

52D, Bondel Road, Kolkata, which had resulted in certain

damage being caused to the existing building at premises

no.47B, Bondel Road, Kolkata.

(ii) When the matter was moved, by an order dated 24th May

2024 a coordinate Bench of this Court, noting the

submissions made by the learned senior counsel

representing the respondent nos.5 and 6 that they were

interested to accept the prayers made by the petitioners, had

directed the respondent no.5 and 6 to make necessary repair

work under the supervision of an empanelled Structural

Engineer to be engaged by the Executive Engineer, Borough –

VII under whose supervision the repairing work will be done.

Accordingly the parties were to approach the Executive

Engineer within a week, for appointment of a competent

##PAGE3##

3

empanelled Structural Engineer for supervising the repair

work.

(iii) Pursuant to the above, a structural engineer was appointed

who had surveyed the premises. Though he had prepared a

report, such report was not filed before this Court, since the

parties were trying to amicably resolve the disputes and

differences amongst themselves as regards the modalities to

carry out repair work. The factum of the parties trying to

resolve the disputes would corroborate from the recordings

made in several orders passed from time to time.

(iv) Subsequently, on 17th March 2026 after series of attempts

made by the parties to enter into a settlement, the settlement

fizzled out, this Court had accordingly directed the

municipality to carry out an inspection of the property in

presence of the parties and to file a report. Pursuant to the

aforesaid, the municipal authority has filed a report duly

countersigned amongst others by the Executive Engineer

(C)/Building/Borough-VII dated 1st April 2026. Although the

above report was taken on record, as the report noted that

considering the gravity and merits of the situation, some

more time is required to complete the entire process, this

Court had accordingly granted time till 6th May 2026.

4. Today the municipality has filed a fresh report dated 6th May 2026.

The petitioners and the respondent nos. 5 and 6 have now come

forward and would submit that they are interested to have the

repair work done in terms of the report dated 6th May 2026 filed by

##PAGE4##

4

the Executive E

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top