Calcutta High Court
MAT/941/2026 of TAUQIR AHMED AND ORS. Vs THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. on 23 September 2026
Court No. 12 Item No. 8 Sandip MAT 941 of 2026 With CAN 3 of 2026 Tauqir Ahmed & Ors. Vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. Mr. Alak Kr. Ghosh, Ms. Manisha Nath …for the KMC. Mr. Achintya Kr. Banerjee, Mr. Anand Farmania, Ms. Indumouli Banerjee, Mr. Adip Naryan Banerjee,
23.09.2026
Court No. 12
Item No. 8
Sandip
MAT 941 of 2026
With
CAN 3 of 2026
Tauqir Ahmed & Ors.
Vs.
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Mr. Alak Kr. Ghosh,
Ms. Manisha Nath
…for the KMC.
Mr. Achintya Kr. Banerjee,
Mr. Anand Farmania,
Ms. Indumouli Banerjee,
Mr. Adip Naryan Banerjee,
Mr. Wasim Rony
…for the respondent no. 6.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The appeal was filed by the alleged occupants of the building, which had been found to be unauthorised by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Upon holding proper proceeding, such decision was arrived at. Such demolition proceeding was initiated at the direction of the learned writ Court.
2. In the contempt proceeding, the Corporation could not satisfy Her Lordship with regard to complete demolition of the structure involved. Accordingly, Her Lordship directed demolition and passed certain directions upon the contemnors (officials of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation).
3. At such juncture, challenging such order some persons claiming to be occupants, approached this Bench seeking leave to appeal and prayed for stay of the order of demolition.
4. On the facts pleaded, we deemed it necessary to allow the leave and directed the Corporation to file an affidavit. The Corporation has filed such affidavit containing relevant documents.
5. The appeal came up for hearing before this Bench and the same was dismissed for default along with the connected application on August 4, 2026. Subsequently, by an order dated September 14, 2026, the appeal and the connected application were restored to their original file and number.
6. The question of law being considered by us is whether the occupants who are not persons responsible for raising the construction, have a right of hearing or not.
7. The order of stay of the demolition was also passed. On the last day, a prayer was made for adjournment.
8. We had granted adjournment upon observing that repeated adjournments in the teeth of an order of stay of demolition would be counter productive. Today, it has been informed to us that the appellants had not instructed their learned advocate to carry on with the proceeding. Under such circumstances, upon recording the aforementioned facts, the appeal and the connected application are dismissed for default.
9. The Corporation will be free to carry out the demolition work, on the basis of the order passed by Her Lordship and in accordance with law.
10. The report of the complete demolition and compliance of Her Lordship’s order shall be filed in the contempt proceeding by the Corporation.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)