11.09.2026 Sl. No. 10 Ct No. 446 SG WPA 19992 of 2026 Asit Kumar Paul & Anr. Vs The Secretary, Department of Urban Development & Municipal Affairs, Government of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Saptansu Basu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Mr. Meghajit Mukherjee, Mr. Santanu Chattopadhyay, Ms. Brinda Sengupta. …for the petitioner Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, Mr. Dipankar Ghosh, Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee. …for the KMC Mr. Arnab Mukherjee, Mr. Chandra Sekhar Sarkar, Mr. S. Das. …for the respondent nos. 8, 9, 10 & 11 Mr. Subrata Banerjee, Ms. Sumana Sinha. …for respondent no. 12 1. Affidavit-of-service as filed by the petitioners is taken on record. 2. At the outset, Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 12, submits that the said respondent, namely, Sanjib Ghosh, was the owner of a portion of the premises in question; however, he has since transferred his share in favour of one Gita Das. He submits that, in view of such transfer, the respondent no. 12 has been improperly impleaded in the present proceeding. The said submission has not been 2 disputed by the petitioner. In view thereof, the name of the respondent no. 12 is expunged from the array of parties. 3. The present writ petition has been preferred, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the respondent nos. 2 to 7 to cancel the allotment of a separate holding number, being Premises No. 86E, Canal Circular Road, bearing Assessee No. 11-033-03- 0026-7, in respect of the erstwhile Premises No. 86, Canal Circular Road, and to delete the same from the assessment records of the Municipality. In addition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to revoke and cancel the building plans sanctioned in respect of Premises Nos. 86B and 86E, Canal Circular Road. 4. Mr. Basu, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that, initially, in the assessment records of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (for short, “KMC”), the premises in question was recorded as Premises No. 86, Canal Circular Road, and was assessed as a single unit. Subsequently, upon subdivision of the ownership of the said premises and as the respective owners started enjoying their portions separately, the holding was separated and five separate holding numbers, namely, 86, 86A, 86B, 86C and 86D, were assigned to the respective portions of the said premises. He submits that the respondent no. 7, who was then at the helm of affairs of the KMC, misusing his official position, caused a separate holding number, namely, 86E, to be allotted to one portion of the said premises, allegedly without following the prescribed procedure required to be complied with before effecting such separation 3 and allotment of a separate holding number in respect of any portion of the premises. 5. He submits that the occupiers of Premises No. 86B and those of the so-called fictitious holding bearing No. 86E have commenced construction without obtaining any sanctioned building plan or the requisite permission from the competent authority. It is submitted that such unauthorised construction was brought to the notice of the Municipal Commissioner by way of a representation dated 14th July, 2026. However, despite receipt of the said representation, no effective steps have been taken by the Municipal Commissioner in this regard. In such circumstances, the petitioners, being the owners of other holdings forming part of the same premises, have been constrained to approach this Court by preferring the present writ petition. He submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if the Municipal Commissioner is directed to consider the grievances raised by the petitioners in their representation dated 14th July, 2026, upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 6. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 8 to 11, submits that, in respect of the premises in question, a civil suit being T.S. No. 157 of 2026 is pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sealdah. Referring to an interim order dated 3rd August, 2026 passed in the said suit, he submits that, by the said order, both the plaintiffs and the defendants therein, namely, the petitioners and the private respondents herein, have been directed to 4 maintain status quo with regard to the nature, character and possession of the suit property. He submits that, until disposal of the said suit, no direction ought to be issued requiring the Municipality to interfere with any matter relating to the said premises. However, ultimately, he submits that, if the matter is relegated to the authority concerned with a direction to consider the petitioners’ representation upon affording an opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties, he would have no objection thereto. 7. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the Corporation, submits that, if the matter is relegated to the authority concerned with a direction to consider the representation, he would have no objection thereto. 8. In response, Mr. Basu asserts that, in violation of the interim order passed in the said suit, the private respondents have been carrying on construction. 9. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, particularly having regard to the stand taken by the respective parties, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent no. 4 to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 14th July, 2026 and address the issues raised therein as well as those raised in the present writ petition, as noticed hereinbefore, and pass a reasoned order upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the private respondents and all other interested parties, including the present owners of all the holdings forming part of the premises 5 in question. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order. 10. It is made clear that, while undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the Corporation shall confine itself strictly to matters falling within its municipal jurisdiction and shall not enter into or adjudicate upon 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 before which the title suit being T.S. No. 157 of 2026 is pending. It is further clarified that any action taken by the Corporation pursuant to this order shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the pending suit. 11. It is also clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claims raised by the petitioners in their representation dated 14th July, 2026, in the present writ petition or in the course of hearing of the writ petition. All questions are left open to be considered and decided by the respondent no. 4 while considering the petitioners’ representation in accordance with law. 12. The parties shall be at liberty to produce documents in support of their respective contentions at the time of hearing. If any such document is produced, the same shall be taken into consideration by the respondent no. 4, in addition to the existing records and the sanctioned building plan, if any, before taking a decision on the petitioners’ representation. 6 13. With these observations and order, the present writ petition is, thus, disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 14. Since no affidavits have been called for from the respondents, the allegations made in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents. 15. Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)