16.09.2026 Court No. 12 Item 79 (ML) Cp F.M.A. 387 of 2025 I.A. No : CAN 1 of 2024 CAN 2 of 2025 CAN 3 of 2025 Sukumar Santra & Ors. Vs. Sri Muroti Mohan Santra & Ors. Mr. Somnath Roy Chowdhury, Ms. Arpita Chowdhury, Mr. Anik Das …..for the appellants. Ms. Nibedita Chakraborty, Ms. Chaandreyee Chakraborty ….for the respondent/writ petitioner. Mr. Santanu Chatterjee Mr. Ankit Surekha ….for the Howrah Municipal Corporation. 1) We are in receipt of the report from the Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur (IIEST)and we find that construction of the building in question has been made in multiple phases. Block A represented the earliest load-bearing masonry construction. Thereafter Block B and C were constructed. Relevant portion of the said report is quoted below:- “Technical Opinion Based on the visual observations made during the inspection, the inspection team is of the following technical opinion: 2 Multiple phases of construction: The building has undergone successive phases of development. Block A represents the earliest load-bearing masonry construction, Block B appears to be a subsequent first-floor addition over Block A, and Block C represents the latest structural addition at the rear. This opinion is based solely on visible structural and architectural characteristics observed during the inspection. Construction period: The exact dates or years of construction of the individual portions cannot be determined from a visual inspection. To the best of our knowledge, there is no established scientific technique or engineering methodology capable of determining the precise age of an existing building or its constituent parts with an accuracy of a few years.” 2) We rely on the first paragraph of the report. We are dissatisfied with the report filed by the Assistant Engineer, Howrah Municipal Corporation, Borough VII, as we find that the Corporation has shirked its statutory obligation. 3) When we asked the corporation to file a report, it was meant that the official should make an inspection in the presence of the parties and furnish their opinion on the basis of the findings. 4) The report of the IIEST, at best could be used as a reference. The Assistant Engineer was not expected to endorse the views of IIEST, Shibpur. Thus, the report dated July 30, 2026 is rejected by us. 3 5) The Corporation had itself issued notice of self-demolition, inter alia, finding that there was unauthorized construction. Suddenly, the Corporation took a U-turn and filed a report before us, stating that the construction was very old. The contrary stand taken by the Corporation persuaded us to ask the Civil Engineer, Department of IIEST, Shibpur to make an inspection. The report of the IIEST indicates that the constructions were in phases. However, the report is inconclusive with regard to the age of the building. Thus, it is quite possible that the subsequent additions were made when the relevant law had already come into force. 6) By the order impugned that, the Howrah Municipal Corporation was directed to implement a self-demolition order. It is submitted by the appellants that neither any inspection nor any hearing had been conducted prior to demolition of the construction. The records also do not indicate that proceedings had been initiated in terms of the statute. 7) Under such circumstances, the order impugned is set aside. 8) The Howrah Municipal Corporation shall conduct an independent inspection in the presence of the parties. It is a matter of record 4 that the construction was made in phases and there were additions to the earlier existing construction. The issue before us now is whether the structures which were raised later required any sanction from the corporation or not. 9) The respondent/writ petitioner submits that apart from the old structure, additions were made by violating the law. 10) Thus, the Howrah Municipal Corporation cannot abdicate its statutory duty, without holding an inspection and coming to a specific finding upon hearing the parties, whether the constructions so made required any sanction or not. 11) Under such circumstances, a qualified engineer of the Howrah Municipal Corporation, to be selected by the Commissioner, apart from the Assistant Engineer who filed the report before us, shall cause an inspection of the premises in question in the presence of the parties and prepare a report. Thereafter, the parties will be supplied with the report. The parties will be heard and necessary orders will be passed. 12) The Commissioner, Howrah Municipal Corporation, shall conduct the hearing and pass necessary orders, as we have lost all trust 5 on any other subordinate officer. In the event unauthorized construction is detected, steps shall be taken to demolish the same. A reasoned decision will be passed and served upon all concerned. The entire exercise shall be completed within three months. 13) The appellants will not change the nature and character of the construction or any part thereof and/or alienate the same. 14) Accordingly, the appeal and the connected applications are disposed of. 15) Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)