"Utterly Shocking": Calcutta High Court Raps KMC Officer For Demolition Order Passed Without Checking Records
Image Courtesy: The Statesman
"It is utterly shocking that for an officer of the municipality who passed the order of demolition without bothering to even consult its own records, would take shelter by claiming that none had brought the same to his notice."
With these observations, the Calcutta High Court directed the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) to restore the roof of a flat that was damaged during demolition of an allegedly unauthorized construction, holding that the municipal authorities acted in a "most reckless manner" by failing to verify their own records before ordering demolition. The Court, however, left the flat owner's claim for damages open to be pursued before the appropriate forum.
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury was hearing a writ petition filed by Tapas Mazumdar, who purchased a fourth-floor flat in a residential building at Ananda Palit Road, Kolkata. The petitioner contended that although his flat formed part of the sanctioned G+4 structure, its roof was demolished when KMC carried out demolition of unauthorized construction allegedly raised by the developer on the upper floors.
The petitioner submitted that he had purchased the flat after being shown the sanctioned building plan and had obtained mutation in KMC records. He alleged that the developer subsequently raised unauthorized construction beyond the sanctioned plan, prompting demolition proceedings by KMC. During the exercise, however, the roof of his sanctioned flat was also demolished.
Pursuant to an earlier direction of the Court, KMC filed a report stating that it had initiated proceedings after receiving a complaint from Entally Police Station regarding unauthorized construction. The Corporation said its inspection revealed construction at the fifth and sixth floors without any sanctioned plan being produced, following which stop-work and demolition proceedings were initiated under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. It further stated that only after receiving the petitioner's complaint did it discover that a sanctioned G+4 building plan had existed, though it had expired in 2014. According to KMC, the sanctioned plan had not been brought to the notice of the Executive Engineer during the demolition proceedings.
KMC defended its action by contending that the sanctioned building permit had long expired and that demolition of the fifth-floor portion was therefore justified.
Rejecting the Corporation's stand, the Court held that the Executive Engineer had failed to perform the basic duty of verifying municipal records before passing the demolition order.
The Court observed that the authority could not later justify the demolition by introducing new reasons through affidavits when those reasons did not form part of the original order. It noted that the demolition order itself did not examine whether the construction had been raised after expiry of the sanctioned building plan but instead reflected the officer's ignorance of the Corporation's own records.
Accordingly, the Court directed KMC to restore the damaged roof of the petitioner's flat within eight weeks, with the Executive Engineer required to certify completion of the restoration. While declining to decide the petitioner's claim for damages in writ proceedings, the Court granted him liberty to seek appropriate relief before the competent forum.
Case: Tapas Mazumdar v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors., WPA 11266 of 2026