02.09.2026 sl.28 Ct No. 446 tkm WPA 23956 of 2026 Md. Abid Ansari Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay Mr. Rahul Kr. Singh Mr. Altamas Kabir Mr. Danish Farooqui …for the petitioner Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee …for the KMC Dr. Siddhartha Goswami Ms. Sruti Datta …for the State Mr. Aritra Bhattacharya Mr. Suman Dutta …for respondent nos. 12-14 1. Fundamentally, the present writ petition has been filed praying for an order restraining the concerned respondents from taking any steps to demolish the building pursuant to the notices dated 21.08.2026 and 25.08.2026 issued by the Executive Engineer (CC/Bldg/Br-VII), KMC. 2. Mr. Bandhopadhyay, learned Advocate representing the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of a residential flat measuring about 520 sq. ft. on the first floor, consisting of two rooms, one hall room, one kitchen and one bath and privy, at premises no. 87, now 87/A, Debendra Chandra Dey Road, Kolkata-15, P.S. Entally. He submits that the private respondent decided to 2 demolish the erstwhile structure standing on the land and construct a multi-storied building. Before undertaking any demolition and construction work, they entered into an agreement with the petitioner that immediately after completion of the construction, an area of equal portion shall be allotted to the petitioner in the newly constructed building. 3. He submits that, in terms of the agreement, the petitioner was allotted an area measuring 520 sq. ft. on the 6th floor. However, while carrying out the construction, the private respondent illegally constructed four additional floors, whereupon the KMC initiated demolition proceedings. In such circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to institute Title Suit No. 612 of 2025 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Sealdah, against the private respondent as well as the KMC. He submits that, in the said suit, by an interim order dated 26.11.2025, the respondents were restrained from demolishing the suit property or altering its nature and character until the next date of hearing. He further submits that the KMC is a party to the said proceeding. Notwithstanding the said order of injunction, the KMC issued a notice dated 25.08.2026 seeking assistance from the Joint Commissioner of Police for carrying out the demolition work and stating that the demolition would be undertaken on 03.09.2026 or on such consecutive dates as 3 may be necessary until completion of the demolition of the unauthorised construction. 4. Referring to an order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in MAT 996 of 2025, he submits that, in the said case, the developer was directed to relocate the tenant to any other premises and, until such relocation, the Corporation was restrained from taking any steps towards demolition of the building. He submits that, unless interim protection is granted in favour of the petitioner by restraining the Corporation from taking any further steps towards demolition of the building allotted to the petitioner, the petitioner would suffer irreparable injury. 5. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the Municipality, submits that the petitioner is a tenant. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in MAT 2279 of 2023 (Bijay Biswakarma v. Rajkumari Devi Singh & Ors.) , he submits that a tenant has no right to participate in the demolition proceedings and that he has no right to challenge the order of demolition. 6. He submits that, in the suit, the Corporation was made a proforma defendant and the learned Civil Court passed order of injunction against the defendants therein. Therefore, the interim order passed by the learned Civil Court is not binding upon the Corporation. He submits that the notice dated 25.08.2026 was issued in compliance with the orders passed by the Division Bench in WPO(P) 3 of 2024 and in the contempt petition being CC 78 of 2025. 4 Therefore, according to him, the Corporation cannot be blamed for taking any action illegally. 7. Dr. Goswami, learned Advocate for the State, submits that the petitioner should have approached the Civil Court with an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking appropriate relief and that the filing of the present writ petition is nothing but an act of forum shopping. 8. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. 9. The learned Civil Court passed an order restraining the defendants therein from taking any steps to demolish the suit property and KMC was proforma defendants to that suit. Therefore, the order of injunction is not binding upon the KMC, and the notice dated 25.08.2026 was issued in compliance with an order passed in a writ petition being WPO(P) 3 of 2024. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, noting the fact that the Corporation had already taken steps under Section 400(8) of the KMC Act, disposed of the contempt petition being CC 78 of 2025. 10. As noted hereinabove, the notice dated 25.08.2026 was issued by the KMC in compliance with the orders passed by this Court in WPO(P) 3 of 2024 and in the contempt petition being CC 78 of 2025. Any order passed in the present writ petition restraining the KMC from taking steps towards demolition of the unauthorised construction would, in effect, amount to staying the operation of the orders passed in WPO(P) 3 of 2024. In such circumstances, 5 I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any interim reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed without any order as to costs. 12. However, it is clarified that this order shall not preclude the petitioner from taking appropriate steps before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)