OD- 5 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/1088/2024 SAURAV KUMAR DUTT VS THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY Date: 25th August, 2026 Appearance: Ms. Sreyanshi Majumdar, Adv. ….for the petitioner Mr. Alok Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Srijan Nayak, Adv. Mr. Dwijadas Chakraborty, Adv. …for the KMC 1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the respondents to forthwith take steps to demolish the existing footpath outside the boundary wall of 24B, Bagmari Road, Kolkata-700 054 occupying a part of KMC’s recorded road width as reported vide the inspection conducted on 9th May 2024. 2. The petitioner claims to be a co-owner in respect of premises No. 24B Bagmari Road, Ward No.32, Police Station –Maniktala, Kolkata-700 054. According to the petitioner, the entire footpath adjacent to the roadside wall of the property was blocked by unknown persons who have made constructions of masonry structures and tin sheds and multiple encroachments made on the entire length of the present boundary wall on the roadside being the northern wall of the premises. 2 WPO/1088/2024 3. According to the petitioner, since, despite repeated representations, no steps had been taken, the petitioner approached this Court in a writ petition which was registered as WPO 1619 of 2023. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 26th September 2023 directing the Executive Engineer (Civil), Building Department, Borough – III, to consider and dispose of the objection of the petitioner dated 10th August 2023 in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other necessary parties and pass a reasoned order within a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of that order. A joint spot inspection upon prior notice to the parties was also directed to be conducted. 4. Despite the said order being communicated to the respondents, the respondents did not dispose of the said objection. No joint inspection was also carried out. In the circumstances, the petitioner was compelled to file a contempt application which was registered as CC/23/2024. When the contempt application was taken up for hearing, the respondent/contemnor filed a report dated 26th April 2024 and had stated therein that at the time of inspection on 9th April, 2024 it was found that an old mandir named as ‘Baba Maheswar Nath Mandir’ and R.T. shaded structure was existing at the locale along with certain shops on the western wall of the premises. It was further noted that an order was passed on 26th April, 2026 wherein the petitioner had been directed to submit copy of the original Deed and other relevant documents in respect of the property. 5. Though the contempt application was disposed of by order dated 2nd May, 2024 granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil 3 WPO/1088/2024 Court as regards the encroachment of the petitioner’s land, however, on an appeal being filed before the Division Bench which was registered as APOT/260/2024, by an order dated 9th September, 2024, the Division Bench had observed that in so far as the shop rooms on the boundary wall of the premises, the petitioner was directed to move the SWM Department and CME (Civil) Department for appropriate action, and the learned Single Judge in so far as the encroachments interfering with the ingress and egress to the property is concerned, granted liberty to approach the Civil Court, if necessary. 6. The petitioner claims that pursuant to the aforesaid, direction, the petitioner had approached SWM and CME (Civil) Department on 3rd May, 2024 and following the above, a joint inspection was conducted on 9th May 2024 in presence of the Assistant Director, SWM-I Department, Borough – III and the Executive Engineer (Civil), CME (Civil) Department, Borough-III of the municipal authorities. In the inspection report, it was observed that the 14 permanent structures are existing on the footpath outside the boundary of 24B, Bagmari Road occupying a part of KMC’s recorded road width. 7. The municipality has since filed a report and in such inspection report, the extent of illegal encroachment at 24B, Bagmari Road has also been noted. To more fully appreciate the same, the aforesaid inspection report appearing at page 11 of the affidavit filed by the municipal authorities is extracted hereinbelow: 4 WPO/1088/2024 8. It would transpire from the report that the matter was placed before the Town Vending Committee. However, subsequently the Municipal Secretary had by an office note recorded that most of the stalls were of permanent structures and had been present for over 5 years. It was further noted that the same was not a hawker related matter and accordingly the issue was placed under miscellaneous items in the said meeting and was not discussed. 5 WPO/1088/2024 9. In the light of the above disclosure and having heard the learned advocates for the parties, since the municipal authorities had already returned the finding that the same is not a hawker related matter, in my view the municipality must take steps to make the public road encroachment free and dispose of the petitioner’s representation on expeditious basis. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. (RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.) akg/