Shibu Prasad Sarkar v. Mahestala Municipality And ORS.

22.06.2026 sb Ct.3.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Shibu Prasad Sarkar

Versus

The Maheshtala Municipality & Ors.

Mr. Subhajit Chatterjee Mr. Samir Kumar Manji ... For the petitioners.

Mr. Sovan Mukherjee Ms. Sneha Chatterjee ... For the State.

Mr. R. N. Chakraborty Mr. R. Singh Mr. Saikat Thakurta ... For the municipality.

1.

On 22nd May, 2026, this Court was pleased to pass the following order:- 1.

"The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is taken on record.

2.

Citing extreme urgency, the matter was mentioned in the morning and is accordingly taken up out of turn in presence of the learned advocate for the MaheshtalaMuniciplaity.

3.

The instant writ petition has been filed challenging an order dated 24th April, 2026 whereby the municipality has threatened to resume the demolition proceedings. Going by the aforesaid order, it would transpire that no new demolition order has been passed.

4.

Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has a sanctioned building plan and no demolition should be permitted up to the first floor which has been

constructed in accordance with the sanctioned building plan.

5.

Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appears for the municipality by drawing attention of this Court to the order dated 26th July, 2023, it is submitted that the petitioner was duly heard in the meeting of the Board of Councilors held on 28th November, 2018,subsequently by the demolition order the petitioner was called upon to demolish the unauthorized portion of the building as per the order of the councilors. The said order was also duly communicated to the petitioner on 13th December, 2018. Records would reveal that a writ petition was subsequently filed by one Subodh Sarkar which was registered as WPA 165560 of 2023 complaining that despite the order passed by municipality, petitioner had not bothered to comply with the same.

It is in connection therewith that an inspection was carried out on 24th July, 2023 and since it was noted that the private respondent who is the petitioner herein did not carry out the earlier demolition order, the order dated 26th July, 2023 was passed directing demolition of unauthorized construction and for realization for the cost of demolition. It is not the petitioner's case that the petitioner has carried out the demolition or the petitioner has made payment of the cost. The learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not standing in the way of the demolition order for demolition of the additional floor constructed beyond the sanctioned plan.

constructed on the basis of such plan must not be demolished.

6.

At this stage, Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the municipality is unable to enlighten this Court as to whether the construction carried out by the petitioner upto G+1 storey is in accordance with the sanctioned building plan and/or whether the demolition order is only restricted to the additional floor(s), however, giving benefit of doubt to the petitioner at this stage, I am of the view, the municipality may proceed with the demolition of upper floors without interfering with the sanctioned construction of G+1 floors as claimed by the petitioner.

7.

The petitioner is granted leave to implead Sri Subodh Sarkar, son of late Upendra NAth Sarkar, residing at Benepukur, Sukanta Paly, Post office-Gobindapur(M), Police StationMaheshtala, Kolkata 700141, District-South 24 Parganas as a party respondent in the present writ petition.

8.

The petitioner is also directed to implead Anju Mondal, W/O Sunil Kumar Mondal, VillageSouth 24 Parganas, PIN 743287 and Moumita Malo, W/O Surajit Malo, NimitaSantupara, P.O. & P.S.- Nimita, PIN-700049 as a party respondent who were also notified by the Board of Councilors as regards the demolition proceedings.

9.

The petitioner must complete service on the added respondents and file affidavit-of-service on the returnable date.

10.

List this matter on 16th June, 2026".

2.

In terms of the aforesaid direction, the petitioner has already served on the private respondents. An affidavit of service to that effect filed in Court is taken on record. Despite service, the private respondents are not represented.

3.

Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate representing the petitioner would submit that the construction carried out beyond the sanctioned building plan is required to be demolished.

4.

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting from the disclosure made that a G+1 storied building at holding no.C3135/12/1-2 of Nazrul Sarani, Ward No. 16, under Maheshtala Municipality vide sanction order dated 6th February, 2015, was sanctioned, additional construction beyond such sanctioned plan may be dealt with by the municipal authority in accordance with law. 5.

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for be given to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)