08.09.2026 sl.2 Ct No. 446 tkm WPA 15413 of 2026 Sanjeev Jaiswal Vs KMC & Ors. Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya Mr. Himadree Ghosh …for the petitioner Mr. Partha Ganguly Mr. Bhupendra Gupta …for respondent no. 8 Mr. Alok Kr. Ghosh Ms. Manisha Nath …for the KMC Mr. Mrinal Kanti Sardar …for the State 1. The present writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief: “A writ of /or in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue a wit of and/or in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent KMC, its men, agent, subordinates to stop such work of illegal construct in premises no. 4D, Palm Avenue, Ward no. 65 Borough No. VII, PS- Karaya, Kolkata -700 019 and accordingly directing the municipal authorities to initiate demolition proceeding forthwith.” 2. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submits that the private respondent no. 8 has undertaken construction of a multi-storied building at 2 premises no. 4D, Palm Avenue, Ward No. 65, Borough No. VII, P.S. Karaya, Kolkata-700 019, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short, “KMC”). He submits that although the private respondent obtained a sanctioned plan from the competent authority, he is making the construction in deviation of the sanctioned plan and, while doing so, has encroached upon the statutory space which he is bound to leave, thereby creating disturbance to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s premises. He submits that the petitioner made a representation dated 22.6.2026 before the concerned municipal authority against the illegal construction. Bringing these facts to the notice of the concerned municipality. However, despite receipt of such representation, no steps have been taken in the matter. In view of the aforesaid situation, the petitioner has been compelled to file the present writ petition. He submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the concerned respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation and take necessary steps accordingly. 3. Mr. Ganguly, learned Advocate for the private respondent, refutes such allegation and submits that the private respondent has been making the construction strictly in accordance with the building plan and that he has cut certain palm trees after obtaining permission from the concerned authority. He submits that an undertaking has 3 been given to the concerned authority that, after completion of the construction, appropriate steps shall be taken for reforestation. He submits that, if the matter is relegated to the concerned authority for consideration of the petitioner’s representation, he would have no objection. 4. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate for the KMC, submits that if the matter is remitted to the concerned authority for consideration of the grievances of the petitioner, he will not stand in the way. 5. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, particularly taking into consideration the stand taken by the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of by directing the Executive Engineer, being respondent no. 5, to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 22.6.2026 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the private respondent. If the respondent no. 5 finds it necessary, he may cause an inspection of the premises in question and, if upon such inspection he finds substance in the petitioner’s claim, appropriate steps shall be taken. If he finds that the petitioner’s claim has no basis, a reasoned order shall be passed and the said reasoned order shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. 6. The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4 7. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is disposed of. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)