Municipal Authorities Cannot Curtail Statutory Limitation Period To Appeal Against Demolition Order: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that a municipal authority cannot curtail the statutory right of appeal available against a demolition order by directing its implementation within a period that effectively renders the appellate remedy illusory.

Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that where the statute confers a right to appeal, the adjudicating authority cannot, on its own understanding of the law, deprive an aggrieved person of the opportunity to exercise that right.

"The adjudicating authority cannot seal the fate of the appeal on the basis of his understanding of the law. If the statute recognizes that the person aggrieved has a right to prefer an appeal, such right cannot be interfered with or usurped by the adjudicating authority," the Court observed.

The writ petition challenged a demolition order dated July 4, 2026 passed by the Commissioner of the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation (BMC) in respect of an alleged unauthorised construction at premises in Salt Lake, Kolkata. The Commissioner had directed the petitioners to comply with the demolition order within three days.

Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the hearing afforded by the Corporation was inadequate and that their objections had not been properly considered. He further contended that by directing implementation of the demolition order within three days, the Commissioner had effectively defeated the statutory appellate remedy available under Section 266(3) of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006.

The Corporation submitted that the petitioners had been issued a show-cause notice under Section 266 of the Act and were subsequently granted multiple opportunities of hearing. It was contended that during the hearing held on July 4, 2026, the petitioners admitted the unauthorised construction and sought its regularisation. Since the law did not permit regularisation, the demolition order was passed. The Corporation also argued that granting time for filing appeals in such cases would "open flood gates" and hamper enforcement against illegal constructions.

The Court noted that although the petitioners had initially been served with a hearing notice only after the scheduled hearing time had passed, they were subsequently granted another opportunity and appeared before the Commissioner on July 4. While the Corporation claimed that the petitioners admitted the unauthorised construction, the Court recorded that this assertion had been specifically denied in the writ petition.

Without examining the merits of the demolition order, the Court confined itself to the issue of whether the Commissioner could direct implementation within three days despite the statutory right of appeal.

Rejecting the Corporation's contention, the Court held that the statutory period available for filing an appeal could not be abridged merely because the adjudicating authority believed the appeal would not succeed.

"The statutory period for preferring the appeal also cannot be abridged on such consideration," the Court held.

Accordingly, the Court directed that the Commissioner's order dated July 4, 2026 be read as granting the petitioners thirty days to act in accordance with the order, thereby preserving their right to prefer a statutory appeal.

The writ petition was disposed of with the clarification that the High Court had not examined the merits of the demolition order, leaving all issues open for consideration by the appellate authority.

Case: Md. Ajmal Siddique & Anr. v. The Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Case No: WPA 16136 of 2026

Click here to read order