M/L Item No.-22 04.08.2026 Court No. 3 Rohan In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA 19023 of 2026 Md. Umar Farooque Versus The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. Mr. Habzur Rahaman Mr. Md. Shamim Halder … for the Petitioner Mr. Srijan Nayak Ms. Sabnam De … for the K.M.C. Mr. D. N. Ray, Ld. GP Mr. Atanu Basu … for the State 1. Reports filed by the State and the police authorities are taken on record. 2. Challenging the demolition notice dated 24th July, 2026 issued by the Municipal Authorities in respect of Premises no.-B/2B/H/20, Dr. M.N. Chatterjee Sarani, Ward-028, Borough-IV, the instant writ petition has been filed. The petitioner claims to be a bharatiya under Thika Tenant. The Thika Tenant is not represented at the time of call. 3. Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Municipality and has placed before this Court a report, counter-signed among others, by the Executive Engineer(C)/Bldg/Br-IV dated 4th August, 2026. 2 According to such report, the Department had previously detected an unauthorized construction by erection of several numbers of R.C.C. columns at the ground floor level of the above premises without any building sanction plan. Accordingly, the Department had issued a stop work notice under Section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’). Police intimation was given to the local police station (Narkeldanga Police Station) on the same date. 4. Consequently, upon noting continuous construction work even after imposition of stop work notice, an FIR was lodged against the person responsible at the local police station on 20th November, 2024. Requisition for Round the clock permanent police posting was served twice to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Lalbazar on 4th December, 2024 and 27th December, 2024. Following the aforesaid, a proposal under Section 400 of the said Act along with D/sketch was prepared and sent to the higher authority on 6th December, 2024 for proceeding under suitable sub-section of Section 400 of the said Act. The authority had thereafter passed an order of demolition of unauthorized construction under Section 400(8) of the said Act. The date of demolition was fixed by the authority on 28th January, 2025, 29th January, 2025, 4th September, 2025 and 15th 3 September, 2025. Accordingly, the demolition was executed on the scheduled dates. 5. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the person responsible did not stop the construction, so the department was compelled to issue another Round the clock permanent police posting on 25th September, 2025. Further, demolition was carried out on 29th July, 2026 and on 30th July, 2026. Certain portions of the 4th floor roof and walls were partly demolished and certain other portions of the 5th floor roof were also partially demolished. According to the report, the building in question is partly six storey and partly seven storey, fully occupied and unauthorized. It is thus, clear from the above that the petitioner, without making appropriate disclosure, has approached this Court. The factum of the entire structure being completely unauthorized had been suppressed. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, however, has relied on the judgment delivered in the case of Niranjan Kumar Sen & Anr. Versus The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. delivered on 16th October, 2023 in APOT 384 of 2023 to contend that having regard to the provisions contained in Section 400 of the said Act, the petitioner is entitled to notice and has a right to be heard. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find that the petitioner claims 4 himself to be only a bharatiya under a Thika tenant. The person responsible has not approached this Court challenging the order of demolition. The petitioner does not claim to be a person responsible to have carried out the illegal construction. As would appear from the judgment delivered in the case of Niranjan Kumar Sen & Anr. (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench was of the view that an occupier has a right to receive a show- cause notice under Section 401 of the said Act, provided the illegal construction is carried out by the said occupier. The building in question appears to be entirely unauthorized. There is no sanctioned building plan. Notwithstanding the above, a partly six and partly seven storied building is standing. The petitioner has also not disclosed any sanctioned plan. 7. Considering the aforesaid scenario, there is no scope for this Court to entertain the writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. 9. All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 5 10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)