27.07.2026 ML. 51 Ct No. 3 tkm WPA 15821 of 2026 Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tirthankar Dey Mr. Basudeb Patra Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty Ms. Ria Naskar … for the petitioner Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya Mr. Saumadeep Dutta …for the KMDA Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharya, ld AAG Mr. Srijib Chakraborty Mr. Arijit Dey …for the KMC 1. Challenging the public notice dated June 27, 2026 issued to seek removal of unauthorized occupants at EM Bye Pass under the Durgapur bridge the instant writ petition has been filed. 2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in support of the above writ petition would submit that Banwari Lal Gupta was allotted a godown space no. 3 under Box Culvert in Durgapur bridge Scheme no. VII- M for a monthly rent of Rs. 175. Later, on the death of Banwari Lal Gupta, Calcutta Improvement Trust by letter dated November 30, 1995 had allowed mutation in favour of Smt. Kailash Devi Gupta, the widow of Banwari Lal Gupta. The rent receipts issued by the Calcutta Improvement Trust are disclosed. Trade 2 licence issued by the municipal authority has also been disclosed. 3. Learned advocate for the Calcutta Improvement Trust has disclosed a report countersigned by the Chief Engineer E&AM Sector, KMDA. By such report, the authorities have acknowledged the allotment made in favour of Banwari Lal Gupta and the creation of tenancy in his favour. The factum of transfer of the rented premises in favour of Smt. Kailash Devi Gupta has also been acknowledged. The report however, indicates that the authorities were unaware with regard to the factum of the death of Smt. Kailash Devi Gupta. 4. Learned advocate for the municipality is represented. 5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and though the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the State has initiated steps for ensuring safety and security of the flyovers and bridges in the city of Kolkata as most of the spaces beneath the flyovers and bridges have been unauthorisedly encroached and since the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the petitioner is in lawful occupation, no relief should be offered in favour of the petitioner, however, having heard the disclosure made in the petition and noting that the 3 KMDA has not disputed the creation of tenancy in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and transfer of such tenancy in favour of Smt. Kailash Devi Gupta, I am of the view that the occupation of the petitioner at this stage cannot be said to be unauthorized. 6. Though, the municipality would contend that they were not made aware with regard to the factum of the death of Smt. Kailash Devi Gupta I am of the view that the same does not change the position. Possession of the petitioner in the peculiar facts in my view cannot be interfered with on the basis of the impugned notice. Accordingly, the respondents are restrained from disturbing the petitioner’s possession except in due process of law. The aforesaid order shall however, not interfere with the right of the municipality to discharge the statutory obligation as provided under the Statute. 7. To reiterate, it is stated that the above order shall not stand in the way of the State from taking appropriate steps for securing the superstructure of the bridge in accordance with law and interference in the matter is qua the petitioner only. 8. With the above observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)