14.07.2026 Court No. 12 ML 43 July 2026 Sandip IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE M.A.T. 1090 of 2026 I.A. No : CAN 1 of 2026 Arundhati Basu -Versus- The Howrah Municipal Corporation & Ors. Mr. Somnath Roy Chowdhury, Ms. Arpita Chowdhury, Mr. Anik Das …..for the appellant. Ms. Sonal Sinha, Mr. Ankit Sureka ….for the Howrah Municipal Corporation. Mr. Tapas Mukherjee, Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh ….for the respondent nos. 5 & 6. 1) The learned single Judge passed an innocuous order. 2) The Howrah Municipal Corporation had already initiated proceedings under Section 177(1) of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. His Lordship directed that the same should be reached to its logical conclusion within 12 weeks from the date of the order of His Lordship. Here, logical conclusions means demolition also, as unauthorized construction has been detected. 3) We find from the records that a G+1 storied building was approved and sanctioned by the Corporation. 4) An additional floor had been raised by the respondent nos. 5 and 6. Certain deviations were also found as it appears from page 132 of the application i.e. the report that was filed before the learned writ Court on June 25, 2026. The details of the deviations reported are as follows :- Floor name Sanction Area Construction area Deviated area Gr. Floor 238.22 sq.ft 327.00 sq.ft 88.78 sq.ft 1st Floor 238.22 sq.ft 347.60 Sq.ft 109.38sq.ft 2nd Floor Nil 347.60 Sq.ft 347.60 sq.ft Terrace Area 129.01 Sq.ft 103.85 Sq.ft Nil Total= 605.45 Sq.ft 1126.05 Sq.ft 545.76 Sq.ft Total Deviated area = 545.76 Sq. ft 5) Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate for the appellant (the person who was responsible for bringing the alleged unauthorized construction to the notice of the Corporation) submits that the order impugned has rendered the entire prior proceeding to be nugatory. The Corporation had issued a stop work notice to the respondent nos. 5 and 6, asking them to stop the construction of the additional floor. Thereafter, a self-demolition notice was issued. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 continued the construction. The notice dated March 9, 2026, stated that the violation continued, despite attempts of the Corporation to stop the same. A self-demolition notice was issued, after the corporation came to an finding that the construction was unauthorized. The very fact that a self-demolition notice was issued by the Corporation, indicates that the allegation of unauthorized construction had been established. No further hearing or proceeding was required to be initiated. His Lordship erred in misreading the provisions of the statute. 6) Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the respondent nos. 5 and 6 submits that a notice of self-demolition was issued upon detection of an unauthorized floor, but a formal order was not passed. Such order should precede the self- 2 demolition notice. It is also submitted that the self-demolition notice was neither served upon the respondent nos. 5 and 6 nor upon the appellant. It was furnished in Court as a part of a report, which was called for by the learned single Judge. 7) We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. A self-demolition notice was issued. A hearing was held prior to such notice being issued. No order was passed by the appropriate authority. 8) However, we are of the view that a formal order, on the basis of which the notice was issued by the Corporation requiring the respondent nos. 5 and 6 to demolish the deviated and unauthorized portion, should have been passed and communicated to the parties. Under such circumstances, the respondent nos. 5 and 6 as also the appellant are permitted to respond to the report filed before the learned writ Court dated June 25, 2026, within 10 days from date and the authority shall dispose of the matter within 10 days thereafter, upon hearing the parties. 9) We direct that the order shall be reasoned and shall be communicated to the parties. In the event the deviations and unauthorized constructions as detected, cannot be disproved by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, the same shall be demolished. The entire exercise to be completed within two months from date. 10) It is also not in dispute that the respondent nos. 5 and 6 had admitted before the authority that, part construction had been raised without any plan, but they prayed before the authority for exoneration. 11) The order impugned is modified to the above extent. 3 12) Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of. 13) Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) 4