“Right To Shelter Part Of Right To Life”: Calcutta High Court Directs Rehabilitation Of Tenant Before Demolition In Howrah
The Calcutta High Court has held that while unauthorised constructions cannot be protected from demolition, the constitutional right to shelter under Article 21 requires authorities and private developers to ensure the rehabilitation of occupants displaced by such illegal construction.Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury passed the order while hearing a plea by a tenant residing on the fifth floor of...
The Calcutta High Court has held that while unauthorised constructions cannot be protected from demolition, the constitutional right to shelter under Article 21 requires authorities and private developers to ensure the rehabilitation of occupants displaced by such illegal construction.
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury passed the order while hearing a plea by a tenant residing on the fifth floor of a G+5 building in Howrah, where the additional fourth and fifth floors were allegedly constructed without sanction.
The petitioner, Indradevi Sonkar, claimed she was originally a tenant at premises no. 60, M.C. Ghosh Lane, Howrah. According to her case, she had temporarily vacated the old structure in 2021 pursuant to a redevelopment agreement between the landlord, other tenants, and the developer. She was subsequently rehabilitated in a flat on the fifth floor of the newly constructed building in 2025.
However, the Howrah Municipal Corporation informed the Court that although a sanction had been granted only up to G+3 level, the developer had constructed a G+5 building with unauthorised deviations from the sanctioned plan.
Refusing to restrain demolition of the illegal floors, the Court observed: “Since it transpires that the floor where the petitioner is residing is completely unauthorized, I am of the view, there is no scope to restrain the municipality from demolishing the unauthorized portion.”
At the same time, the Court granted the petitioner one month's protection from coercive action to enable her to remove her belongings and identify her occupied portion before the municipality.
The Court strongly criticized the conduct of the landlord and developer for rehabilitating the petitioner in an unauthorized portion of the building.
Observing that the illegality committed by the private respondents could not be ignored, the Court said:
“The manner in which the private respondents had dealt with the petitioner speaks volumes of the mala fide conduct.”
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in In Re: Directions In The Matter of Demolition of Structures, reported in (2025) 5 SCC 1, the Court emphasized that the right to shelter forms part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court observed: “Right to life also includes right of basic necessity in the form of shelter. The right to shelter is one of the facets of Article 21.”
Taking note of a prior Division Bench order in Bijay Kumar Shaw & Ors. v. Howrah Municipal Corporation & Ors. (MAT 996 of 2025), the Court directed the landlord and developer to relocate the petitioner to another residence equivalent to her current accommodation, but in an authorized structure.
The Court held that the responsibility of relocation must be jointly borne by the landlord and developer, “who happen to be the landlord and the developer, and had carried out the illegal construction.”
Since the private respondents failed to appear despite notice, the Court directed the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station to ensure their presence on the next date of hearing.
The matter will next be heard on June 17, 2026.
Case: Indradevi Sonkar Versus Howrah Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Case No: WPA 11655 of 2026