Dismissed¶21

Md. Obaidur Rehman and Anr. v. the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Calcutta HC9 Apr 2026MAT/609/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court; M.A.T. 609 of 2026; Md. Obaidur Rehman & Anr. v. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.; challenge to Single Judge order dated 25.02.2026 in W.P.A. 23632 of 2025; KMC sanctioned building plan dated 02.03.2024; cancellation of sanction sought; tenancy declaration suits Title Suit Nos. 1522, 1553, 1655 of 2021; ad-interim/injunction refused; Misc. Appeals dismissed; civil revisions; appeal and CAN 1 of 2026 dismissed; right to construct per sanctioned plan upheld pending proof of tenancy in suit.

What did the court decide?

The Division Bench is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge (His Lordship). ¶11

Md. Obaidur Rehman and Anr. Vs the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the Division Bench should interfere with the order dated February 25, 2026 passed in W.P.A. 23632 of 2025 by the learned Single Judge, whereby the right vested in the parties to construct pursuant to the KMC-sanctioned building plan was upheld despite the appellants' claim of tenancy. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The Division Bench is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge (His Lordship).

¶11

Ratio / Principle

This court endorses the Single Judge's holding that the right vested on the parties to construct, upon obtaining sanction from the Corporation, could not be taken away at this stage when the appellants had not been protected by the civil court and there is a cloud over their claim of tenancy.

¶19

Key takeaways

Whether the appellants were in possession of the property as tenants is a question to be decided in the civil suit; prima facie proof thereof can only be ascertained when the application for injunction is disposed of.ratio¶18
The appellants had not been successful in convincing the Court at the prima facie stage that they were in possession, the Civil Court having deemed it fit not to pass any ad interim order with regard to the suit property.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court at Calcutta, M.A.T. 609 of 2026 (decided 09.04.2026; Shampa Sarkar and Ajay Kumar Gupta, JJ.): Appeal against the order dated February 25, 2026 passed in W.P.A. 23632 of 2025 dismissed; connected application (CAN 1 of 2026) also dismissed. Appellants, claiming to be tenants of premises sought to be rebuilt under a KMC-sanctioned building plan dated March 2, 2024, had failed to obtain ad-interim protection in Title Suit Nos. 1522, 1553 and 1655 of 2021 (declaration of tenancy); subsequent Misc. Appeals were dismissed and civil revisions resulted only in a direction to dispose of the injunction application. Held: the right vested on the parties to construct upon obtaining sanction from the Corporation could not be taken away at this stage, the appellants not having been protected by the civil court and a cloud lying over their tenancy claim; possession as tenants is a matter for decision in the suit upon disposal of the injunction application. Liberty reserved to the appellants to resort to other legal protections available in law.

¶1

09.04.2026 Court No. 12 Item No. 13 Sandip

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

M.A.T. 609 of 2026 IA No : CAN 1 of 2026

¶4

Md. Obaidur Rehman & Anr.

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.

¶7

Mr. Dinendra Nath Chatterjee, Mr. P. Sengupta, Mr. B. Sengupta

¶8

…..for the appellants

¶9

Mr. Gopal Chandra Das, Ms. Ananya Das

¶10

….for the KMC.

¶11

We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by His Lordship.

¶12

The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated February 25, 2026 passed in W.P.A. 23632 of 2025.

¶13

The appellants claim to be the tenants in respect of the premise which was sought to be rebuilt and allegedly a plan was sanctioned by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Prayer was made for cancellation of the sanction building plan dated March 2, 2024. The appellants filed civil suits before the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), which were registered as Title Suit No. 1522 of 2021, Title Suit No. 1553 of 2021 and Title Suit No. 1655 of 2021, inter alia, praying for declaration of tenancy and other consequential reliefs.

¶14

The appellants were unsuccessful in obtaining any ad interim order, protecting their

¶15

¶16

rights. The learned Civil Judge denied the prayer for ad-interim order. Aggrieved, separate Misc. Appeals were filed. The Misc. Appeals were also dismissed. Three revisional applications were filed from those orders. Those, civil revisions were disposed of by a common order with a direction upon the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 6^th Court at Alipore to dispose of the injunction application filed by the appellants in connection with the civil suits.

¶17

His Lordship took judicial notice of the fact that the Civil Court had deemed it fit not to pass any ad interim order with regard to the suit property, meaning thereby, the appellants had not been successful in convincing the Court at the prima facie stage that they were in possession.

¶18

The civil suits were filed at a time when the construction was going on, pursuant to the sanction plan. The specific case of the appellants was that they had been ousted from the property and the sanction was obtained behind their back. Thus, whether the appellants were in possession of the property as tenants, is a question which has to be decided in the suit and, prima facie, proof thereof can only be ascertained when the application for injunction is disposed of.

¶19

Under such circumstances, His Lordship has rightly held that the right vested on the parties to construct, upon obtaining sanction from the Corporation could not be taken away at this stage when the appellants had not been protected by the civil court and there is a cloud over their claim of tenancy.

¶20

¶21

Under such circumstances, the appeal and the connected application are dismissed.

¶22

The appellants may resort to such other legal protections that are available in law. 10) Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.

¶23

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

¶24

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)

Md. Obaidur Rehman and Anr. v. the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Obaidur Rehman and Anr. v. the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Safikul Mandal and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Surendar Kanu Vs Madan Kanu and Ors.

Amiyo Guria Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sabir Ali Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Md. Iftekhar Vs Cesc Limited and Anr.

Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited and Ors. Vs Golam Sabir and Ors.