25.09.2026 Sl. No.: 9 Court No.444 BM WPA 29749 of 2025 SHYAMALI MAJUMDER VS KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Mr. D. N. Chatterjee Mr. P. Sengupta Mr. B. Sengupta ... for the petitioner Mr. Debjit Mukherjee Ms. Susmita Chatterjee ... for the KMC 1. Affidavit of service, as filed, be kept with the record. 2. The writ petitioner is the daughter of Late Haladhar Majumder. The writ petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 24th November, 2025 issued by the Assistant Engineer(C)/Building, Ward 034, Br. III, whereby and whereunder the Officer-in- Charge, Beliaghata Police Station has been intimated regarding unauthorised construction, being raised by the petitioner, at premises No. B/34/H/19, Barwaritala Road, Ward No.34, Br. III., Kolkata-700 010. 3. The Assistant Engineer(C)/Building, Ward 034, Br. III, requested the concerned Officer-in- Charge, to take follow up action to prevent 2 unauthorised construction at the above mentioned premises and get strict vigil over the said premises and over the person responsible and his men and machinery engaged, so the unauthorised construction cannot be progressed further. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was a thika tenant and she has not raised any illegal or unauthorised construction. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation on instruction submits that initially notice under Section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 was served upon the petitioner. Subsequently, notice under Section 400(1) has been served upon the person responsible on 26th May, 2026. Thereafter, the case filed has been placed before the Special Officer (Building) for completion of proceeding under Section 400(1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. 6. It has been further urged by the Counsel for the respondent Corporation that huge building containing five storied has been raised completely illegally and unauthorisedly at the instance of the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner is in a mood to construct further. 3 7. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner denies the entire allegation levelled by the concerned respondent. 8. It is reflected from the writ petition along with its annexure that the petitioner has not made any representation indicating their stand before the Special Officer (Building) in response to the notice issued under Section 400(1) of the KMC Act, 1980. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the respective parties, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed by directing the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation before the Special Officer (Building) within a period of seven days from this date and the Special Officer (Building) will consider the same in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing of all the effective parties within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order and the Special Officer(Building) will pass the reasoned order within a period of two weeks thereafter keeping in mind that this Court has not gone into the merit of the case. 10. However, as there was no direction for exchanging of affidavits, the allegations levelled by the petitioner are deemed to have been denied. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition is hereby disposed of. 12. No order as to costs. 4 13. The authority will act on the basis of server copy available in the official Website of the High Court, Calcutta. 14. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. ( Atarup Banerjee, J. )