Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Nirmala Agarwal @ Nirmala Devi Agarwal & ... vs Kmc & Ors on 3 February, 2026
03.02.2026
Sayandeep
Sl. No. 05
Ct. No. 03
WPA 23293 of 2025
Nirmala Agarwal @ Nirmala Devi Agarwal & anr.
Vs.
KMC & ors.
Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharya, sr. adv
Mr. Neel Chakraborty
Mr. Akash Adak
Ms. Anuska Ghosh
Mr. A. Gopal Sinha
.... For the Petitioners
Mr. Kallol Basu
Mr. B. Dey
Ms. Piyali Dutta Sengupta
...... for the respondent
Mr. Vimal Kr. Shahi Ms. Ina Bhattacharyya ..... for the KMC
1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the municipal authorities to, inter alia, cancel the reconstruction/sanctioned being plan dated 4th March, 2025 issued by the municipality. The petitioners claim to be a tenant in respect of premises No. 129/1 Mahatma Gandhi Road(previously 129/7 Mahatma Gandhi Road), Kolkata. According to the petitioners, they are tenants in respect of the above property for the last 69 years. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate appearing in support of the writ petition would submit that there is a subsisting decree passed in favour of the petitioners declaring that the petitioners are tenants in respect of the schedule property and the defendants being their landlords have been permanently WPA 23293 of 2025 restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the schedule property, except with due process of law.
2. Mr. Bose, learned advocate representing the private respondent claims to be the owner in respect of premises No. 129/1 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Kolkata. In response to a query from the Court, he would submit that although a decree appears to have been passed by the Court of the learned 12th Bench, City Civil Court at Kolkata in T.S No. 912 of 2015, the private respondent was not aware with regard to the same until purchase of the aforesaid property in the year 2022. According to him, since the property required extensive repair and it was not possible to carry out appropriate repair, a notice under Section 411 of the KMC Act, 1980 had been issued and served by the municipality. Subsequently, the building itself has been demolished. Mr. Bose disputes the extent of tenancy of the petitioners .
3. The municipal authority is represented. It is submitted on behalf of the municipal authorities that the sanction in respect of the above building is under the provisions of Sections 3(2)(a), 3(2)(e) and 3(2)(l) of the KMC Building Rules, 2009 and under Section 410 of the KMC Act.
4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and since it is submitted by Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior advocate representing the petitioners that an entire new construction is 2 WPA 23293 of 2025 coming up, I am of the view that the Executive Engineer of the concerned Borough must carry out an inspection of the premises in question and file a detailed report before this Court along with coloured photographs taken during the inspection, when the matter is taken up next.
5. List this matter for further consideration on 11th March, 2026.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) 3