Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Bandana Biswas vs Sayak Pal Chowdhury And Ors on 19 January, 2026
Author: Rajasekhar Mantha
Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha
19.01.2026
Court No.13
Item No.27
AP
MAT 580 of 2025
With
CAN 1 of 2025
With
CAN 2 of 2025
With
CAN 3 of 2025
Smt. Bandana Biswas
Vs.
Sayak Pal Chowdhury and Ors.
Mr. Deeptangshu Kar
.... For the Appellant.
Mr. Kishore Mukherjee
.... For the Respondent No.1.
Mr. Ananya Mondal .... For the Respondent Nos.9 & 10.
Mr. Susanta Pal Ms. Ananya Neogi .... For the State.
Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay Mr. Arka Nag Mr. Tirthankar Dey .... For the BMC.
Re.: CAN 1 of 2025
1. CAN 1 of 2025 has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 27 days in preferring the instant appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application and the facts from as narrated hereinbelow, this Court is inclined to condone the aforesaid delay.
3. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2025 is allowed. 2
Re.: CAN 2 of 2025
4. A shocking state of affairs has emerged in the present matter.
5. The appeal is directed against an order dated 25th February, 2025 passed by a Single Bench of this Court. The appellant seeks leave to appeal since she was neither a party or not impleaded as a party respondent before the Single Bench.
6. The proposed appellant is a next door neighbour of the unauthorized construction. A whistleblower called Biplab Pandit had complained to the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the BMC") as regards the unauthorized construction at the subject premises in 2022. The building comprises of six floors. There are 23 flat owners, who obtained bank loans to purchase the aforesaid flat units.
7. The building does not have any sanction plan. The construction was made on the basis of a forged sanction plan and a forged completion certificate purported to have been obtained from the Municipal Corporation by the promoters.
8. Having regard to the facts of the case, this Court is inclined to grant leave to appeal to the proposed appellant.
9. Accordingly, CAN 2 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of.
3
Re.: MAT 580 of 2025
10. The facts of the case are briefly discussed in the order allowing CAN 2 of 2025 hereinabove.
11. It appears that the construction is wholly and completely unauthorized. The Single Bench appears to have directed the promoter to deposit a sum of Rs.25 lakh with the BMC. The said amount has been deposited by the promoter. The Single Bench has directed the authorities of the BMC to assess the structural stability of the building.
12. This Court is baffled as to how a completely unauthorized structure constructed with a forged and fictitious sanction plan can at all be regularized by deposit of any amount of money by anybody. The BMC has lodged a complaint which is resulted in an FIR with the Baguiati Police Station.
13. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the view that no amount of equity can aid or legalizes a fraudulent transaction.
14. When the foundation of any process is fraudulent, illegal and criminal, the result of such fraud would automatically stand extinguished. The building cannot be allowed to stand.
15. Learned counsel for the BMC submits that Municipal Corporation proposed to demolish the said 4 unauthorized structure. It is against this order that the writ petitions were filed by a flat owner and the promoter.
16. Let notice of this order be circulated amongst all the residents of the building and be pasted prominently for the residents to note.
17. All residents shall vacate the building within a period of two months from date. The residents shall be entitled to take out appropriate proceedings against the promoter and the landlord as they may be advised.
18. Let notice of this order be also served upon the landlord since the promoter represented.
19. List this matter on 2nd February, 2026.
20. The BMC and the other respondents may file affidavits on the adjourned date indicating their stand in the matter. Any other residents, who wish to be impleaded may also be take steps in that regard.
21. The BMC shall explain in their affidavit as to why no steps have been taken to stop the construction work in the said building since 2022. The officials responsible to conduct of the affairs of the BMC from Mayor to Assistant Engineer shall be named in the affidavit of the BMC.
22. It is also submitted by the counsel for the parties that several such buildings without sanction plan are existing within the territorial limits of the BMC. 5
23. In their affidavit the BMC shall also explain what steps it is taking against such unauthorized constructions.
24. A cascading effect is likely to occur as a consequence of the aforesaid unauthorized construction. It is not known as to how the municipal amenities would be given to these unauthorized construction and where the funds therefor would come from. No taxes can be collected from the residents of an unauthorized construction. There are several other questions that emerge that shall be addressed on the adjourned date.
25. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)