Bablu Basu Mullick v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation And ORS.

15. 18.03.2026.

Court No.03.

(Pritam) WPA 604 of 2026.

Bablu Basu Mullick.

-Vs.- The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Mr. Debasis Sur, Mr. Amitava Chowdhury.

.....for the petitioner.

Mr. Avijit Sarkar, Mrs. Dipa Bhattacharya.

....for the State.

Ms. Sonal Sinha, Ms. Manisha Nath.

.....for the KMC.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for a direction upon the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation with regard to the damages caused to the petitioner.

2. The municipality is represented.

3. Ms. Nath, learned advocate for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) by placing before this Court a report dated 16th March, 2026 counter-signed by the Executive Engineer (C)/Borough - III, would submit that premises No.121/4K and 121/4L/1 consists of a single two

storeyed dilapidated building which has been vertically separated.

4. The building in question was lying in an abandoned condition. Some portions of such building had collapsed on 2nd August, 2025. A portion of the said building had also collapsed on the adjacent premises No.121/4J, Manicktala Main Road, injuring people, who had to be hospitalized.

5. Following the above, the writ petition being WPA 21796/2025 was moved by some of the tenants of the premises no.121/4K, however, considering the dilapidated condition of the building, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court did not stall the demolition proceedings initiated by the KMC, only granting liberty to the petitioner to apply before the KMC for removal of the belongings and articles.

6. Pursuant to such direction, the petitioner herein having made applications dated 8th October, 2025 and on 11th December, 2025, permission had been granted to the petitioner to collect and remove the belongings from the dilapidated building. Sufficient time has already been provided. Along with the report, photographs of the dilapidated portion of the building have also been disclosed.

7. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, prima facie, it would transpire that the building in question was extremely dilapidated and the municipal

authorities were compelled to take recourse to the statutory provisions to bring down the dangerous building.

8. Be that as it may, without going into the question of the petitioner's right to seek damages, the writ petition is not entertained, leaving it open to the petitioner to apply before the appropriate forum, if so advised.

9. With the above directions and observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

10.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)