14.07.2026 Court No. 12 Item No.14 Cp MAT 29 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Sk. Sanwar Ali Vs. Sk. Jakir Hossain & Ors. Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee Mr. Rudranil Das …for the Appellant. Mr. Sandipan Banerjee ….for the H. M.C. 1. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the respondent no. 1. 2. The appeal arises out of an order dated December 1, 2025, passed in WPA 733 of 2024 and WPA 1979 of 2025. The appellant is the writ petitioner in WPA 733 of 2024. The appellant prayed for an order directing implementation of the decision of the Howrah Municipal Corporation, whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 1 was directed to self-demolish the unauthorized construction, which was without any plan. 3. The corporation, by a notice dated June 21, 2024, asked the respondent no. 1 to demolish 2 the construction within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said letter which was issued under Section 177 (1) of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The corporation also reserved the right to demolish the structure at its own cost and recover the cost from the person responsible for such construction. Although the construction was unauthorized, it is available from the records that in 2013 an „As- made‟ plan had been submitted by the respondent no. 1 at the borough office. However, such plan was not considered. 4. It is pertinent to note that regularization of minor deviations was not statutorily provided under the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, but was later incorporated sometime in 2017, by way of an amendment. As the rules governing such regularization has not yet been framed under the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, by way of a notice/office order, the Howrah Municipal Corporation had decided to follow the rules adopted by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Under the rules of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, minor deviations can be regularized and not rampant constructions of entire buildings which have been made without any plan whatsoever. Thus, 3 in the absence of the rules of the Howrah Municipal Corporation, the notification which was in the nature of an administrative order, must be followed. Thus, any regularization shall be governed by rules governing the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, in this regard. 5. In this case, the „As-made‟ plan of the entire construction of a G + 2 storied building had been submitted in 2013, when the law was not even available. In any event, it is well-settled that, only minor deviations may be regularized upon payment of some retention fees as may be determined by the appropriate authority of the corporation. 6. Under such circumstances, the order impugned is set aside. 7. This court relies on the decision of Dipak Kumar Mukherjee vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors., reported in (2013) 5 SCC 336. 8. The Hon‟ble Apex Court deprecated the practice of regularization and held as follows:- “24. In view of the pleadings filed before the High Court and the affidavits filed before this Court, there is no escape from the conclusion that Respondent 7 had raised construction in violation of the plan sanctioned under Section 396 of the 1980 Act and continued with that activity despite the order of the Mayor-in-Council. In the prevailing scenario, the representative of 4 Respondent 7 might have thought that he will be able to pull strings in the power corridors and get an order for regularisation of the illegal construction but he did not know that there are many mortals in the system who are prepared to take the bull by horn and crush it with iron hand. 9. In the matter of Supertech Ltd. v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Assn., reported in (2021) 10 SCC 1, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as follows:- “159. The rampant increase in unauthorised constructions across urban areas, particularly in metropolitan cities where soaring values of land place a premium on dubious dealings has been noticed in several decisions of this Court. This state of affairs has often come to pass in no small a measure because of the collusion between developers and planning authorities. 160. From commencement to completion, the process of construction by developers is regulated within the framework of law. The regulatory framework encompasses all stages of construction, including allocation of land, sanctioning of the plan for construction, regulation of the structural integrity of the structures under construction, obtaining clearances from different departments (fire, garden, sewage, etc.), and the issuance of occupation and completion certificates. While the availability of housing stock, especially in metropolitan cities, is necessary to accommodate the constant influx of people, it has to be balanced with two crucial considerations — the protection of the environment and the well-being and safety of those who occupy these constructions. The regulation of the entire process is intended to ensure that constructions which will have a severe negative environmental impact are not sanctioned. Hence, when these regulations are brazenly violated by developers, more often than not with the connivance of 5 regulatory authorities, it strikes at the very core of urban planning, thereby directly resulting in an increased harm to the environment and a dilution of safety standards. Hence, illegal construction has to be dealt with strictly to ensure compliance with the rule of law.” 10. In Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa reported in (2004) 8 SCC 733, the Hon‟ble Apex Court dealt with a case where the builder had exceeded the permissible construction under the sanctioned plan and had constructed an additional floor on the building, which was unauthorised. The Apex Court held as follow:- “24. Structural and lot area regulations authorise the municipal authorities to regulate and restrict the height, number of storeys and other structures; the percentage of a plot that may be occupied; the size of yards, courts and open spaces; the density of population; and the location and use of buildings and structures. All these have in our view and do achieve the larger purpose of the public health, safety or general welfare. So are front setback provisions, average alignments and structural alterations. Any violation of zoning and regulation laws takes the toll in terms of public welfare and convenience being sacrificed apart from the risk, inconvenience and hardship which is posed to the occupants of the building.” 11. In Esha Ekta Apartments Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of Mumbai reported in (2013) 5 SCC 357, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed as follows:- 6 “8. At the outset, we would like to observe that by rejecting the prayer for regularisation of the floors constructed in wanton violation of the sanctioned plan, the Deputy Chief Engineer and the appellate authority have demonstrated their determination to ensure planned development of the commercial capital of the country and the orders passed by them have given a hope to the law-abiding citizens that someone in the hierarchy of administration will not allow unscrupulous developers/builders to take law into their hands and get away with it.” 12. Thus, the Howrah Municipal Corporation is directed to act and proceed, by giving one last notice to the person responsible for the unauthorized construction and an opportunity to the parties to place their respective versions. 13. The question of considering the „As-made Plan‟ does not arise. A reasoned order will be passed, and the entire process shall be completed within two months from the date of communication of this order. The corporation shall be at liberty to seek police assistance when further steps are taken for demolition. 14. The opportunity of hearing is being allowed to the respondent no. 1, as he has not appeared before us. Some breathing time is made available, to make alternative arrangements as the premises are required to be vacated. 7 15. Unauthorized construction of three floors without any permission cannot be encouraged. The „As-made Plan‟, seeking regularization of the entire structure was filed in 2013. The corporation did not deem it necessary to look into the same. 16. Thus, the order impugned does not have any legs to stand on. The same is set aside. 17. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of. 18. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)