OD 1 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE APOT/112/2026 IA NO: GA/1/2026 RAKESH JANGID VS THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR AND The Hon’ble JUSTICE SMITA DAS DE Date: 7th July, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Sujit Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Mihir Das, Adv. Ms. Paroma Sengupta, Adv. …for the appellant Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. Tanisha Nath, Adv. …for KMC Mr. Saunak Mukhopadhyay, Adv. …for private respondent . The Court: 1. The appeal arises out of an order dated June 11, 2026, passed by the Learned Single Judge in WPO 241 of 2026. By the order impugned, His Lordship dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, holding that the remedy of 2 the appellant was before the Municipal Building Tribunal. While passing the said order, His Lordship recorded certain factual aspects, which demonstrated that that KMC had issued notice of hearing to the occupiers and owners of premises No. 41A, Brojo Dulal Street, Kolkata-700006, Borough-IV, within Ward No. 24. The concerned authority held a demolition proceeding, pursuant to the direction of the High Court dated September 18, 2025, which was passed in WPO 478 of 2025. 2. The writ petition was filed alleging violation of the principles of natural justice and a prayer was made for setting aside the order of the Executive Engineer (Civil) Building Department, Borough-IV, Kolkata Municipal Corporation. 3. The appellant alleged that, KMC had not allowed any opportunity to the said appellant to place his case along with supporting documents, before the decision was taken to demolish the structure. 4. His Lordship, however, did not accept such contention, and held that, pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge in WPO 478 of 2025, attempts were made by the corporation to notify the date of hearing of the demolition case. Photographs of the notices which were pasted on the outer wall of the building, intimating that the hearing would take place on December 3, 2025 at 3.30 pm was produced before His Lordship. That apart, copies of notices addressed to Kishenlal Katsaria & Hauman Muljee 3 Banthia, Oswa Naba Jubak Samity & others, Devang Badani, Babita Jangid and Rakesh Jangid were also produced. The attendance sheet was produced, which recorded that Devang Badani and his advocate appeared on 3rd December, 2025 and on 19th December, 2025. The Executive Engineer had passed an order on 11th May, 2026, observing that the construction raised by the appellant was illegal and without any plan from the concerned department. 5. It appears that the appellant and one Babita Jangid, by letter dated December 22, 2025, informed the Executive Engineer, Kolkata Municipal Corporation that, although they were called for a hearing on December 3, 2025, they were not able to attend the hearing as a family member had expired. This letter was issued after hearing had been completed. It was further informed that the four storied building was 100 years old and was in dilapidated condition. Thus, repairs had been undertaken so that the school could be run from a safe environment. 6. It appears from the records that the appellant approached KMC with a request to permit them to carry out certain repairs. KMC informed the appellant about the series of repairs, alternation and addition which were permissible without any permission. KMC instructed the appellant that, the repairs should be undertaken in the presence of and under the supervision of an empanelled structural engineer of the Corporation. 4 However, the contention of the respondent no. 6 is that, under the garb of repair the appellant was raising an unauthorised construction of various floors. KMC was of the opinion that, upon demolition of the existing structure, a four storied structure was attempted to be raised from the plinth level. 7. The factual background which gives rise to this appeal is that, respondent no. 6 filed a writ petition, inter alia, alleging unauthorised construction by the appellant. The said writ petition was disposed of on September 18, 2025 with a direction upon the Executive Engineer, Building Department, Borough-IV and V, Kolkata Municipal Corporation to decide and dispose of the representation of the respondent no. 6. As the corporation did not take steps, the respondent no. 6 filed an application for contempt of court. The corporation filed an affidavit of compliance, inter alia, stating that unauthorised construction had been made and steps had been taken. 8. The order of the Executive Engineer has been handed over in court. The engineer of KMC found that the person responsible for the unauthorized construction had constructed RCC slabs at the ground floor and first floor and beams with column casting at the 2nd floor, without any sanction. 9. The appropriate authority of the KMC issued a stopwork notice. On December 2, 2024, along with an intimation to the Officer-in-Charge, 5 Jorabagan Police Station to stop such unauthorised construction. The matter was placed before the appropriate authority of the corporation for necessary orders and decisions. As a consequence thereof, the department proposed for initiation of a proceeding under Section 400(8) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 with regard to the raised construction, as emergent steps were required to be taken in view of the continuous violation by the appellant. Without any foundation work and required structural stability, floors were being raised. The competent authority approved the proposal to proceed against the appellant under Section 400(8) of the said Act. Subsequently, the sub-Assistant Engineer, upon spot inspection found further construction of two floors. Notice was issued to stop further construction. Immediately, a demolition sketch map was prepared, on the basis of such inspection. The Executive Engineer (Civil), Building Department, Borough-IV, Kolkata Municipal Corporation passed the order under Section 400 sub-section (8). The relevant provision is quoted below:- “(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, if the Mayor-in- Council is of the opinion that immediate action is called for in relation to a building or a work being carried on in contravention of the provisions of this Act, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, cause such building or work to be demolished forthwith.” 6 10. The Mayor-in-Council approved the proposal of the building department to proceed under Section 400(8) of the said Act on September 10, 2025. The nature and extent of infringement of the KMC rules had been stated in the minutes of the meeting of the Mayor-in-Council. The findings of the Mayor-in-Council are quoted below :- “This is a case of unauthorised construction. As reported by the concerned Borough it is understood that the person responsible has case RCC roof slab at ground floor & 1st floor and beam with column casting at 2nd floor, without sanction. Accordingly, the concerned Borough issued stop work notice u/sec. 401 of the KMC Act, 1980 on 02/12/2024 along with Police Intimation sent to Jorabagan Police Station on 04/12/2024. To stop further progress of unauthorised construction at the captioned premises this department lodged F.I.R. u/sec. 401A of the KMC Act, 1980 on 12/04/2025. But the person responsible further constructed RCC slab and extended columns and this department sent requisition for found the clock police posting on 05/05/2025 and 30/07/2025 to prevent further continuance of the unauthorised construction. Department also placed the matter to take action u/sec. 400 of the KMC Act, 1980 along with D-sketch and infringement statement. The alleged construction infringes several building rules including rules 133 & 134 of the KMC Bldg. Rules, 2009. D.G.(Bldg.) has ordered to take action u/sec. 400(8) of the KMC Act, 1980. Moreover, the said unauthorised construction, if allowed to stand, may collapse at any moment of time leading to accident resulting in loss of human lives and property and may also create several other hazards like fire hazards and environmental hazards etc. 7 Considering the gravity of the situation and safety of public in general, department recommends demolition of the unauthorised structure forthwith under Section 400(8) of the KMC Act, 1980. The matter is placed before the meeting of Mayor-in-Council KMC for approval. *** *** *** Resolved in MIC dt- M-63.142 Dt- 10.09.2025 Considering the facts & circumstances as stated above in the department report and upon due consideration of other relevant issues, it is resolved that since the person responsible executed the unauthorized construction as indicated in the precis of the Agenda Item as identified by the concerned department, such unauthorized construction is unsafe and may collapse at any moment of time leading to accident resulting in loss of human lives and property and may also create several other hazards like fire hazards and environmental hazards etc., appropriate action towards demolition of such anauthorized construction be taken forthwith under Section 400(8) of the KMC Act, 1980 with the help of police force.” 11. Section 400(8) of the KMC Act does not contemplate that hearing has to be given to the person responsible for unauthorised construction. However, repeated notices were served. Initially, the construction was of a single storey. Thereafter, the records reveal that the Sub-Assistant Engineer of the corporation found that constructions were being attempted to be made under the garb of repair. Inspite of a direction of the KMC that, the repairs should be undertaken under the supervision of an empanelled structural engineer of the corporation, the said direction was not followed. 8 Although notices were issued to stop construction and the police authorities were also requested to take steps to stop such construction as per provision of the said Act, the appellant continued with the violations. 12. Under such circumstances, the competent authority of the corporation was of the view that, proceedings should be initiated under Section 400(8) of the said Act. The appellant totally disregarded the stop work notices. The appellant was represented before the competent authority, but on the last day of hearing, the appellant was not present. 13. His Lordship held that, the remedy of the appellant was before the Building Tribunal. Factual issues which have been raised before us by the appellant do not impress us, inasmuch as, the appellant has not been able to produce any sanction plan which would indicate that the construction had been permitted by the Corporation. Secondly, the assessment records which have been produced before us, do not create any equity in favour of the appellant in respect of such unauthorised construction. However, all disputed questions will be decided by the appropriate forum. His Lordship has already indicated that the appellant has an alternative remedy. As the premise is being used as a school, the demolition will not take effect for a period of one month, to enable the appellant to make alternative arrangement and secure safety of the students. 14. The appeal and the application are accordingly disposed of. 9 15. The decision of the Mayor-in-Council and the decision of the Executive Engineer are kept with the records. (SHAMPA SARKAR, J.) (SMITA DAS DE, J.) TR/