15.09.2026 SL No.6 Court No.12 (gc/Sandip) MAT 1490 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 Md. Rehan Vs. Asraf Hossain & Anr. Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee, …for the Appellant. Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya, Mr. Dipankar Ghosh …for the KMC. Mr. Anand Farmania …for the Petitioner (V.C.). Re : CAN 1 of 2026 1. CAN 1 of 2026 is an application for leave to file an appeal. 2. The appellant filed an application for addition of party in a contempt proceeding being CPAN 382 of 2024 and the learned Single Judge, instead of adding the appellant as a party to the proceeding, directed the appellant to file the sanction plan. This order has affected the appellant, inasmuch as the appellant submits that the scope of the contempt proceeding has been expanded by Her Lordship. 3. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2026 is allowed. 4. MAT 1490 of 2026 is regularized. Leave is granted. 5. Paragraph 4 of the order impugned is quoted below:- 2 “It appears from records that the construction in question was made by Md. Anwar, the father of the applicant. Proceeding to deal with the unauthorized construction and for demolition of the subject structure was initiated in the year 2015. When the proceeding was initiated, the construction was up to G+1 storied. Currently the construction has gone up to G+5 stories. The father of the applicant has expired and after his expiry, the applicant has approached this Court with the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice.” 6. On an earlier occasion, at the instance of the appellant, another appeal was preferred against an order dated March 12, 2026 passed in CPAN 382 of 2024. By the said order, the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Division were directed to provide assistance to the men and agents of the Corporation so that the unauthorized construction could be demolished without further delay. The order from which the contempt proceeding arose was passed in WPA 19489 of 2023. 7. By the order dated September 26, 2023, the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction upon the Executive Engineer (C)/Building to take necessary steps and deal with such unauthorized construction in accordance with law, at the earliest. The appellant had contended before the Division Bench in the appeal that he was not a party to the 3 proceeding and he claimed to be a thika tenant in respect of the premises. He alleged that no demolition order had been served upon him. The appellant claimed to have inherited the property from his mother. The Division Bench recorded that although, Her Lordship had mentioned a stop work notice dated June 11, 2026, the Division Bench was not satisfied that the demolition proceeding had been initiated sometime in 2016. In the contempt proceeding, reports were filed by the engineer of the Corporation, indicating that the construction was unauthorized and as such, Her Lordship directed demolition. 8. The Corporation’s learned Advocate was unable to satisfy us that pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge dated September 26, 2023 passed in the writ petition, the Executive Engineer had taken steps in accordance with law in order to deal with the unauthorized construction. Upon observing that the demolition order could be passed only in accordance with the statutory provisions, the appeal was disposed of directing the Corporation to satisfy the Contempt Court that proceedings had been initiated in accordance with law. The demolition order was stayed for five weeks. The Division Bench also recorded that the Corporation had gone directly to the Executive Magistrate and sought for orders 4 under Section 584 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act. The Executive Magistrate passed an order directing demolition, which was stayed by a revisional Court. These aspects persuaded the Division Bench to express doubt with regard to the compliance of the statutory formalities while effecting demolition of a property. The Division Bench directed that, if Her Lordship was satisfied that the demolition proceeding had been initiated on the basis of the order passed in WPA 19489 of 2023, then demolition should take effect. 9. The appellant filed an application for addition of party in the contempt application and the order impugned was passed. The appellant has also filed an application for extension of the order of stay of the demolition passed by the Division Bench. In our view, both the applications were misconceived. The appellant did not have any right of audience in the contempt proceeding. The appellant had other avenues which had been left open, and to be explored. 10. Under such circumstances, the applications filed by the appellant before the learned Contempt Court are dismissed. 11. In view of the dismissal of the applications filed by the appellant, all directions upon the appellant passed in the order impugned stand deleted. . 5 12. The learned Contempt Court will proceed in accordance with law, Corporation will satisfy the learned court about the procedure followed and the demolition order that was passed after directions were issued in the writ petition, under the statutory provision. 13. Corporation shall produce all the orders passed in the demolition proceeding in respect of the Premises No.166/H/71/1, Keshab Chandra Sen Street, Ward No.037, Br-V. 14. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of. 15. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 16. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)