Calcutta High Court
APO/42/2026 of HARI NARAYAN SHUKLA Vs KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS on 12 August 2026
1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO. GA/1/2026 In APO/42/2026 HARI NARAYAN SHUKLA Vs KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR The Hon’ble JUSTICE ARJUN RAY MUKHERJEE Date: 12th August 2026.
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.
ORDER
OD – 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE
IA NO. GA/1/2026 In APO/42/2026 HARI NARAYAN SHUKLA Vs KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS
BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR The Hon’ble JUSTICE ARJUN RAY MUKHERJEE Date: 12th August 2026. Appearance: Mr. Sanjoy Bose, Adv. Mr. PriyankarBasuMallick, Adv. … for appellant. Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Sima Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. FazlulHaque, Adv. … forKMC.
The Court:- Despite service, none appears on behalf of the private respondent. We are not inclined to interfere with the direction for demolition of the podium. The allegation of the appellant is that, apart from the podium, a brick wall with a tin shed had also been constructed on a common passage/courtyard. The Corporation has already filed a report which has been recorded by the learned Single Judge. Such construction has been mentioned therein.It is also stated that the Corporation had issued a stop work notice with regard to such construction. The appellant is aggrieved because his Lordship has directed that the temporary construction with the tin structure should not be demolished. It is urged that brick wall with a tin roof is not a temporary structure as per the building rules and as such, the order impugned suffers from infirmity. His Lordship should have directed proceedings to be drawn up in relation to such construction as well. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the second report which was filed before His Lordship was accepted and directions were passed for demolition of the construction. According to Mr. Mukherjee, the writ petition was confined to a prayer for demolition of the podium and as such, the authority has proceeded on such basis. Learned Single Judge has also proceeded on such basis. We have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. We find that the learned Single Judge has recorded in paragraph 3 of the order impugned that, in the first report the Corporation had mentioned that a brick wall with a tin shed which was allegedly without any permission had been constructed. The order impugned is modified to the following extent. The appellant is at liberty to approach the Corporation with his complaint with regard to the alleged construction of a wall with a tin shed. The Corporation, upon receipt of such complaint will act and proceed in accordance with law. If any proceedings are drawn up, all the parties including the party responsible for such alleged construction shall be heard and necessary steps shall be taken thereafter including demolition, if it is found that the said construction is also contrary to the rules. The appeal and the application are disposed of.
(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.)
(ARJUN RAY MUKHERJEE, J.) S. Kumar