8 10.09.2026 Court No.11 J.Das CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE SIDE MAT 30 OF 2026 (In WPA 1500 of 2023) Sanjay Mazumder Vs. Siliguri Municipal Corporation & Ors. Mr. Ajay Singhal Mr. Thaneshware Kumai Mrs. Heena Yasmin Shaikh …For the appellant Mr. Janardan Periwal …For the S.M.C. Mr. Arnab Sengupta Mr. Rajat Chandra Singha Ms. Sanjeeta Sharma …For the respondent no.4 1. The grievance of the appellant is directed against an order dated 27 November 2025. 2. Briefly, one Rabi Paul Chowdhury had been granted a plot of land measuring 2 katha 8 chattaks 30 sq.ft. Subsequently, the said Rabi Paul Chowdhury constructed a residential house on the said plot of land after obtaining sanctioned plan from the Siliguri Municipal Corporation, the respondent no.1 being plan no.3630 dated 11 August 1994. The said Rabi Paul Chowdhury expired on 3 December 1997 leaving behind his wife namely Smt. Anjali Paul Chowdhury as his only legal heir who inherited the above premises. 3. One Sovan Sinha being the respondent no.4 was a physiotherapist and caretaker looking after the 2 Chowdhurys. It is alleged that the said Sovan Sinha was gifted the roof of the existing one single storied building by Anjali Paul Chowdhury by virtue of a registered Deed of Gift, being document no.581 of 2000 duly registered with the office of the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Siliguri. Anjali Paul Chowdhury died on 12 June 2021 and gifted the entire ground floor including the land and the constructed area in favour of the petitioner being her nephew. 4. It is now alleged that subsequent to the death of the said Anjali Paul Chowdhury and taking advantage of the fact that the petitioner was working at Guwahati, the respondent no.4 has made several illegal and unauthorized constructions on the first floor of the premises without any sanctioned building plan. It is with this grievance that the petitioner had approached the Writ Court seeking demolition of the illegal and unauthorized construction. 5. Significantly, pursuant to an order dated 26 September 2023 a Co-ordinate Bench had directed the entire question of illegal and unauthorized construction to be considered by the Commissioner of Siliguri Municipal Corporation. By a reasoned order dated 9 October 2023 the Commissioner had come to a finding that the open spaces on the northern and southern side is the same are required to be corrected/removed/demolished by the owners 3 of the building within a period of 15 days from the date of communication of this order. 6. Pursuant to the order, a site inspection report had also been prepared by the Corporation. 7. In this background, the impugned order came to be passed whereby it has been held as follows: “However, these specific allegations do not find place in the demolition order dated October 9, 2023. The Commissioner’s order records that the open spaces on the northern and southern sides do not conform to the applicable Building Rules and that an unauthorised semi-pucca structure exists in the rear (eastern) open space. The Commissioner accordingly directed that such unauthorised constructions be corrected, removed, or demolished. I am not inclined to sustain the order dated October 9, 2023, in its entirety. It was not open to the Commissioner to order demolition of a building constructed pursuant to a duly sanctioned plan granted in 1994. After nearly thirty years, no demolition could reasonably have been directed on the ground that the mandatory rear (eastern) open space had not been maintained in the original construction. Implementation of such an order would effectively result in eviction of respondent no. 4, who is presently residing on the first floor of the building. It becomes evident from the sequence of events and the conduct of the petitioner that the prayer of the petitioner is not a bona fide action aimed at addressing municipal irregularities but is, in fact, a veiled attempt to secure eviction of respondent no. 4 from the premises. The invocation of alleged unauthorised construction—most of which does not even find mention in the order of the Commissioner—strongly suggests that the petitioner seeks to achieve indirectly, through municipal demolition proceedings, what he could not legitimately obtain through due process of law. Such an attempt to employ the writ jurisdiction of this Court as a surrogate mechanism for eviction cannot be countenanced. Therefore, the order of the Municipal Commissioner dated October 9, 2023, is set aside insofar as it directs correction, removal, or demolition of the building on the ground of non- maintenance of the mandatory open spaces on the northern and southern sides of the premises.” 8. It is fairly submitted on behalf of both parties that the question of whether or not there is illegal and unauthorized or not is something which is exclusively within the domain of the respondent no.1 Corporation. 4 9. Upon a consideration of the impugned order, it appears that the Learned Single Judge has in his own wisdom decided to uphold a portion of the order dated 9 October 2023 passed by the Commissioner and disregard the remainder of the order. In such circumstances, the finding in the impugned order that it was not open to the Commissioner to order demolition of a building constructed pursuant to a Bhumi Sanctioned Plan granted in 1994 does not address the issue of illegal or unauthorized construction. These facts were exclusively within the domain of the respondent no.1 Corporation and there is no basis for interference with such finding in the impugned order. The entire exercise undertaken by the Learned Single Judge is dehors the provisions of the Act and in excess of jurisdiction. 10. The petitioner had approached the Court with a plea for demolition of illegal and unauthorized construction. This was an aspect of the matter which should have been exclusively determined by the Corporation and could not have been usurped by the Writ Court. To this extent, the Report of the Commissioner does not even arrive at a conclusive finding as to whether there has been any illegal or unauthorized construction or not. 11. In view of the above, the impugned order is unsustainable and is set aside. The complaint of the petitioner of illegal and unauthorized construction is remanded to the Commissioner to hear afresh in 5 accordance with law within a period of 8 weeks from date hereof and after giving a right of hearing to all the parties to determine whether or not there was any illegal or unauthorized construction. To this extent, the order of the Commissioner dated 9 October 2023 is also set aside. 12. It is made clear that there has been no expression on the merits of the case of unauthorized or illegal construction and all issues are left open for the Commissioner to be decided afresh strictly in accordance with law. 13. Insofar as the unauthorised semi pucca structure exists at rear (eastern) side open spaces are concerned, it is submitted by both the parties that there was an unauthorized and illegal construction and the same has been demolished by the respondent Corporation during the pendency of this proceeding. [Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.] [Supratim Bhattacharya, J.]