Sultan Khichi Vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sultan Khichi Vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No further direction issued; the writ petition was disposed of without further order, the Court noting the municipality's scheduled demolition programme of 12th May, 2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to implement the demolition order dated 30th August 2019 passed by the Special Officer (Building) in respect of the 6th and 7th floors of the said premises. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court noted on the materials on record that there is an illegal construction on the 5th, 6th and 7th floors of the premises in question.

Ratio / Principle

Although an order of demolition for the 6th and 7th floors has been passed, the same is yet to be implemented.

Key takeaways

The private respondent's appeal before the Municipal Buildings Tribunal is under active consideration, but there is no stay of the order passed by the Special Officer (Building).ratio¶¶19
The municipality has already taken steps to implement the demolition order and a demolition programme has been fixed on 12th May, 2026, as per its report.ratio¶¶20
In view of the steps already taken by the municipality, there is no scope to issue any further direction at this stage.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.), by order dated 11th May, 2026 in WPO/564/2025 (Sultan Khichi v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.), disposed of a writ petition seeking implementation of the demolition order dated 30th August 2019 passed by the Special Officer (Building) in demolition case no.112/Br-V/07-08 & 33-D/Br-V/16/17 against unauthorised construction on the 6th and 7th floors of premises no.66A, Collutalla Street (now Maulana Shawet Ali Street), Kolkata – 700 073. Procedural background: demolition proceedings under notice under Section 400(1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 ended in a retention order; that order was set aside in WPA 13634 of 2009 (9th February, 2010); the Division Bench quashed the regularisation (18th August, 2010) and directed re-examination regarding the 5th floor and above, resulting in the fresh demolition order of 30th August, 2019. The private respondent's appeal before the Municipal Buildings Tribunal was pending without any stay. On the municipality's report dated 28th April, 2026 showing fresh notices to owners/occupiers and a demolition programme fixed for 12th May, 2026, the Court held there was no scope to issue any further direction at that stage and disposed of the petition without further order.

OD- 6

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE.

WPO/564/2025

SULTAN KHICHI

VS

KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY Date: 11^th May, 2026

Appearance: Mr. Sanjoy Bose, Adv. Mr. Priyankar Basu Mallick, Adv. ….for the petitioner Mr. Sandipan Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Swapan Kumar Debnath, Adv. ….for the KMC Mr. Debanik Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Sidharta Basu, Adv. Mr. Huzaifa Shahid, Adv. ….for the respondent no.7

The present writ petition has been filed in effect seeking implementation of a demolition order dated 30^th August 2019 passed by the Special Officer (Building) in demolition case no.112/Br-V/07-08 & 33-D/Br-V/16/17 in respect of the 6^th and 7^th floor of premises no.66A, Collutalla Street now Maulana Shawet Ali Street, Kolkata – 700 073 (in short ‘the said premises’).

The petitioner claims that the portion of the 5^th , 6^th and the 7^th floor are entirely unauthorised. Notwithstanding the aforesaid and despite the petitioner making complaints, though demolition proceeding was initiated by issuing notice under Section 400(1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, unfortunately, the Special Officer (Building) while disposing of the proceedings, allowed retention of the unauthorised structure upon payment of fees.

2

Challenging the order of retention, a writ petition being WPA 13634 of 2009 was filed. On 9^th February, 2010, the Court set aside the retention order. The matter travelled up to the Division Bench, whereupon by an order 18^th August, 2010, the Hon’ble Division Bench quashed the regularisation and directed re-examination of the case regarding the 5th floor and above. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the Special Officer (Building) had once again reheard the matter, whereupon the order dated 30^th August, 2019 was passed.

According to Mr. Bose, the construction on the 6^th and 7^th floors had been directed to be demolished, though the portion of 5^th floor was treated to be a minor unauthorised construction and was permitted to be retained by the Special Officer (Building). Mr. Bose would submit that the petitioner is, in fact, an owner in respect of a flat in the 4^th floor being no.402 of the said premises and he had purchased the said flat on 8^th February, 2007. The petitioner states that according to the disclosure made in the deed of conveyance, the building was constructed vide sanctioned building plan dated 28^th January, 1982. Much later, the private respondent illegally and unauthorisedly constructed the 5^th , 6^th and 7^th floors. He submits that notwithstanding the aforesaid illegality ultimately being brought to a close by the municipal authorities vide the order of Special Officer (Building) dated 30^th August, 2019, the municipality is yet to take any steps for implementation thereof.

The private respondent is represented through Advocate in Court. According to the private respondent though belatedly an appeal has been filed before the Municipal Buildings Tribunal, the appeal is under active consideration before the tribunal. The learned Advocate for the private respondent would

3

however, while responding to a query from the Court, candidly submit that there is no stay of the order passed by the Special Officer (Building).

The municipality is represented and has placed before this Court a report dated 28^th April, 2026. According to such report, the municipality has issued fresh notice to the owners and occupiers for demolition of the unauthorised portion in the said premises and the demolition programme is fixed on 12^th May, 2026. The report corroborates the petitioner’s case as submitted.

Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting the materials available on record that there is an illegal construction on the 5^th , 6^th and 7^th floors of the premises in question and also noting that though an order of demolition for the 6^th and 7^th floors has been passed, the same is yet to be implemented. I also note that the private respondent claims that he had prefered an appeal. The learned Advocate for the private respondent has submitted that the appeal is under active consideration before the Tribunal. Unfortunately, there appears to be no stay of the order impugned.

Though the petitioner would seek for a direction upon the municipality, to implement its order of demolition, however, since the municipality has now woken from its slumber and as per the report, the municipality has already taken steps to implement the demolition order and a demolition programme has been fixed on 12^th May, 2026, there is no scope to issue any further direction at this stage.

The writ petition stands, accordingly, disposed of without further order.

(RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.)

akg/