07.09.2026 sl.15 Ct No. 446 tkm WPA 17945 of 2025 Sanwarul Alam Halder Vs KMC & Ors. Mr. Bodhidipta Mondal Ms. N Bera Ms. Sumdeha Baishya …for the petitioner Mr. Pulakesh Bajpayee …for respondent nos. 7-9 1. The present writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief: “A writ or writs in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to take immediate steps for stopping the unauthorized and illegal construction at 4B, Kavi Mohammad Iqbal Road, under Kolkata Municipal Corporation, ward no. 77, Street No. 12, PS Ekbalpore, Kolkata-700023 and to demolish the illegal construction in its entirety and/or any illegal portion of such construction in accordance with law which has already been raised on the said premise forthwith.” 2. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record. 3. Despite service, Corporation is unrepresented. 4. Mr. Mondal, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner and the private respondents are co-owners of the building forming the subject matter of the present petition. He submits that, in October 2024, private 2 respondents nos. 7 and 8 undertook construction work on the said building without obtaining any valid sanctioned plan. The petitioner raised an objection against such illegal act of the private respondents and the petitioner also made several requests to the private respondents not to carry out any construction over the building. However, such requests were not acceded to. He submits that a direction be given to the Corporation to cause an inspection of the building and to take appropriate steps for removal of the unauthorized construction from the said building in accordance with law. 5. Mr. Bajpayee, learned Advocate for the private respondents, vehemently opposes the contention raised by the petitioner. He submits that a civil suit for partition in respect of the same building is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Alipore, South 24 Parganas, and the said suit has been registered as Title Suit No. 1620 of 2024. He submits that, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any action of the private respondents in respect of the said building during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner ought to have approached the civil court. 6. In response, Mr. Mondal submits that any violation of the building rules does not fall within the domain of the civil court to decide. He submits that he would be satisfied if the municipal authority is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation. 7. In view of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of with a 3 direction upon the respondent no. 2, namely, the Municipal Commissioner, KMC, to cause an inspection of the premises and ascertain whether any construction is being carried out therein without obtaining the requisite sanction or permission from the Corporation or in contravention of the applicable building rules and regulations. 8. However, it is made clear that, while undertaking such exercise, the Corporation shall confine itself to the aspects falling within its municipal jurisdiction and shall not adjudicate any question relating to the title, ownership, possession, co-ownership or any other civil rights of the parties, which are matters falling within the jurisdiction of the competent civil court. If, upon such inspection and consideration of the relevant material, the Corporation finds that any construction is being undertaken without any requisite sanctioned plan or without obtaining the necessary permission from the competent authority or in contravention of the building rules, the Corporation shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law. However, before taking any decision, the Corporation shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the private respondents. 9. The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Till disposal of the representation by the respondent no. 2, the petitioner and the private respondents shall 4 maintain status quo with regard to the nature, character and possession of the building in question. 11. It is clarified that I have not gone into the merits of the contentions raised in the representation of the petitioner, and all points are kept open to be considered by the respondent no. 2 while deciding the petitioner’s representation. 12. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is disposed of. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)