18.09.2026 AD 02 Ct No. 3 sayandeep WPA 15826 of 2026 Ajay Kumar Gupta & anr. Vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. Mr. Aninda Lahiri, Sr. Adv Mr. Tirthankar Dey Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty Mr. Basudeb Patra Ms. Bratati Pramanick Mr. Shantanu Chakraborty …for the petitioners Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya Mr. Kaustav Seal …. For the KMDA Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, ld. AAG Mr. Srijib Chakraborty Mr. Arijit Dey ….. for the KMC 1. Challenging the public notice dated 27th June, 2026 issued by the Executive Engineer(Civil), Borough III, KMC, the instant writ petition has been filed. 2. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 27th July, 2026, the learned advocate for the petitioners by drawing attention of this Court to letter dated 14th June, 1994 had submitted that in response to an application filed by the petitioners’ father on 10th May, 1994 for taking on rent the godown space under the box culvert in approach road to the Durgapur Bridge in Scheme VII-M (Manicktala Main Road to Ultadanga Main Road) on monthly tenancy basis, the Secretary Calcutta Improvement Trust had notified that at its meeting held 2 WPA 28146 of 2025 before the Board of Calcutta Improvement Trust, the petitioners’ father’s offer had been accepted. The petitioners’ advocate had also relied on a bunch of documents issued by the Calcutta Improvement Trust in the name of the estate of deceased Registered Tenant (RT) Satish Kumar Gupta. By relying on the aforesaid bunch of documents issued by the Calcutta Improvement Trust in the name of the estate of deceased RT and the trade license issued in his favour, it was submitted, that the petitioners are in occupation of the above godown under the Durgapur Bridge, and are carrying out business therefrom. It was also the petitioners’ case that the said allotment was made under the authority of the Kolkata Improvement Trust and the same was not an illegal occupation. 3. Having considered such submissions by an order dated 27th July, 2026 noting that the petitioners had been able to make out a prima facie case, the Court had directed that the possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed till next date of hearing. On the returnable date, a report in the form of affidavit was filed by the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and in such affidavit, the factum of godown space being let out to Satish Kumar Gupta was acknowledged. 4. It was, however, highlighted in such report that the tenancy was not in the name of the legal heirs of the deceased Satish Kumar Gupta. To morefully appreciate 3 WPA 28146 of 2025 the same, the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid report is extracted hereinbelow: 5. Since then, the matter was adjourned form time to time, however, the interim order all along subsisted on being extended from time to time. 4 WPA 28146 of 2025 6. Today, the matter has come up under the heading “Extension of Interim Order”. Noting form the disclosure made by the parties and by consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final consideration. 7. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the KMC has placed before this Court a report dated 9th July, 2026 duly singed by the Executive Engineer (Civil), Borough III, KMC. According to such report, ordinarily since no establishment should be allowed beneath any bridge or any flyover for facilitating periodical structural inspection and the authorities having identified in course of inspection held on 27th JUne, 2026 that three numbers of warehouses were in existence, the above notice was issued. 8. Having heard the learned advocate appearing for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record, I find, though prima facie that the petitioners’ possession cannot be said to be absolutely without any authority as there appears to be some authority granted in favour of the petitioners’ predecessor. As to whether the petitioners can be entitled to retain possession thereof is an issue which has to be adjudicated before appropriate forum. The municipal authorities, in my view, are however, not competent to decide on to the same especially when the petitioners have been able to establish some right to retain possession of the portion under its occupation. 5 WPA 28146 of 2025 9. In peculiar facts, I am of the view that the possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed except in accordance with law. The petitioners shall not be evicted on the basis of the public notice dated 27th June, 2026. The aforesaid order shall, however, not interfere with the rights of the municipality to discharge their statutory obligation as provided under the Statute. 10. It is also made clear that the above order shall not stand in the way of the State from taking appropriate steps for securing the superstructure of the bridge in accordance with law, and interference in the matter is qua the petitioners only. 11. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)