Sk MD Ishque Vs MD Shahid and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sk MD Ishque Vs MD Shahid and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Condonation of delay (GA 2 of 2026) and leave to appeal (GA 1 of 2026) allowed; appellant added as a party to the writ proceeding; paragraph 5 of the Single Judge's order modified so that restoration/demolition of the demolished area is deferred for four weeks pending the Corporation's report, no demolition takes place till further order of His Lordship, and no construction is permitted on the building till further order of the Writ Court, with strict vigil by the Corporation and Police Authorities; appeal disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the applicant claiming to be the developer and person responsible for the construction adversely affected by the Single Judge's order in WPO 759 of 2025. +2 more

Court's answer

Leave to appeal (GA 1 of 2026) is granted because the applicant claims to be the developer and the person responsible for the construction, and the order passed by the Single Judge in WPO 759 of 2025 adversely affects the construction raised by the applicant.

Ratio / Principle

The delay of 26 days in filing the application for leave to appeal is held to be explained and is condoned; GA 2 of 2026 is allowed.

Key takeaways

The appellant is added as a party to the writ proceeding, and the writ petitioner is to take necessary steps and serve a copy of the writ petition on the learned Advocate for the appellant.ratio¶11
Since the appellant, being the person responsible for the construction, was not before the Single Judge when the order was passed, restoration of the demolished area shall not take place for a period of four weeks; the Corporation shall file its report before the Single Judge and circulate it amongst the parties, and the appellant may raise his grievance before His Lordship.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Order sheet of the High Court at Calcutta (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, Original Side) dated 25 March 2026, Coram: Shampa Sarkar and Ajay Kumar Gupta, JJ. On GA 1 of 2026 (application for leave to appeal) and GA 2 of 2026 (condonation of delay) from the judgment and order dated January 15, 2026 of the learned Single Judge in WPO 759 of 2025, the Bench condoned a 26-day delay and granted leave to appeal to the applicant, who claims to be the developer and the person responsible for the construction adversely affected by that order. The appellant was added as a party to the writ proceeding, with the writ petitioner to serve a copy of the writ petition on the appellant's advocate. Noting the Corporation's inspection finding that the demolished portion had been restored, the Bench deferred restoration of the demolished area for four weeks, directed the Corporation to file and circulate its report before the Single Judge, modified paragraph 5 of the Single Judge's order so that no demolition takes place till further order, prohibited any construction on the building till further order of the Writ Court, and directed the Corporation and the Police Authorities to maintain strict vigil with prompt action against any further construction activity. The appeal was disposed of.

OD 3

ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE

BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR The Hon’ble JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA Date: 25^th March, 2026.

Appearance: Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Avirup Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Rishov Das, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Chakraborty, Adv. …for the appellants Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Satabdi Das, Adv. Mr. Anirban Saha Roy, Adv. ...for respondent nos. 8 to 10 Mr. Alak Kr. Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Manisha Nath, Adv. …for KMC

The Court: IA GA 1 of 2026 is an application for leave to appeal. GA 2 of 2026 is an application for condonation of delay in filing the application for leave to appeal from the judgment and order dated January 15, 2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPO 759 of 2025.

Upon considering the averments in paragraphs 5 to 12 of the said application, we are satisfied that the delay of 26 days in filing the appeal has been explained. GA 2 of 2026 is allowed. Now we propose to take up the application for leave to appeal.

2

GA 1 of 2026 is allowed on considering the fact that the applicant, who seeks to file the appeal from the order passed by His Lordship, claims to be the developer and the person responsible for the construction. The order which was passed by His Lordship in WPO 759 of 2025 adversely affects the construction raised by the applicant.

Now we proceed with the appeal.

We are of the view that appellant should be made a party to the writ proceeding and accordingly addition of the appellant in the writ proceeding is allowed. The writ petitioner will take necessary steps and serve a copy of the writ petition to the learned Advocate for the appellant.

It is submitted by Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate for the Corporation that inspection has already been held and it has been found that the demolished portion had been restored. However, as the appellant, who is a person responsible for the construction, was not before His Lordship when the order was passed, the restoration of the demolished area shall not take place for a period of four weeks. The report shall be filed before His Lordship by the Corporation and thereafter circulated amongst the parties. The appellant shall raise his grievance before His Lordship. Paragraph 5 of the order is modified to the extent that till further order by His Lordship, demolition will not take place. However it is made clear that no construction will be permitted on the building till further order of the Writ Court and the corporation as also the Police Authorities will maintain strict vigil. If any further construction activity is found prompt action will be taken to stop the same.

Accordingly the appeal is disposed of.

(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.)

(AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.)

TR/