Jhuma Das and Anr vs Ananta Paul and Ors

Kausik Chanda, J

We are satisfied that the appellants have sufficient cause for being aggrieved by the impugned order. Accordingly, we grant leave to the appellants to prefer this appeal. CAN 1 of 2025 is accordingly disposed of.

In view of the extreme urgency as pleaded in this application, this matter is taken up for hearing without service upon respondent no.8, the promoter of the relevant building.

The original writ petitioner has filed the present appeal challenging the demolition order dated 24th April, 2023, passed by the Howrah Municipal Corporation, along with the consequential vacating notice dated 30th August, 2025. The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition by an order dated 26th September, 2025.

The present appeal has been preferred along with an application for leave to appeal, at the instance of two flat owners occupying a part of the fourth and fifth floors of the building in question.

Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that the demolition order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellants or any other affected party. He points out that the order itself mentions that a hearing was conducted on 12th May, 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic. He contends that the timing of the hearing raises concerns about whether proper notice and opportunity were given. It is further submitted that the Howrah Municipal Corporation has since mutated the flats in favour of the appellants in 2023 and has been regularly collecting municipal taxes from them. In light of these facts, he prays for a stay of the demolition order insofar as it pertains to the flats owned by his clients.

Mr. Ankit Sureka, learned counsel appearing for the Howrah Municipal Corporation, submits that it is an admitted position that only a G+3 building plan was sanctioned for the premises in question. However, the promoter of the building constructed two additional floors without obtaining any permission from the Corporation. He contends that such a substantial unauthorized construction cannot be regularized, and granting a stay would set a dangerous precedent, encouraging further unauthorized constructions within the Corporation’s jurisdiction. He further submits that under the statutory scheme of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the right to a hearing is granted only to the person at whose instance the unauthorized construction has been undertaken, and not to individual flat owners such as the petitioners.

We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

Prima facie, we are not satisfied that the demolition order was preceded by any opportunity of hearing given to the promoter or any other concerned party. We are also of the view that, since the petitioners have been paying municipal taxes since 2023, the demolition order ought not to be implemented without affording them an opportunity of hearing. These are, of course, only our prima facie observations, and the Corporation shall be given an opportunity to file an affidavit dealing with the allegations made in the application.

In view of the above, we are inclined to pass an interim stay of the demolition order, limited to the flats owned by the appellants, for a period of three months from date, subject to the condition that a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakh only) for each of the two flats shall be deposited before the Corporation—by the landlord (respondent no. 1), who is represented by Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, advocate—within one month from date.

It is made clear that the above deposit shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. In the event the landlord fail to make such deposits in terms of this order within the stipulated time, the interim stay shall stand automatically vacated, and the Corporation shall be at liberty to proceed with the implementation of the demolition order.

Needless to mention, this order is based on prima facie findings and shall not be treated as a precedent.

It is further clarified that the appellants shall not create any third-party interest in respect of the flats in question until disposal of this appeal.

Let a copy of this application be served upon respondent no.8, intimating that this matter shall be taken up for hearing one week after the ongoing Puja Vacation.

The petitioner shall file an affidavit-of-service to that effect on the next date of hearing.

Let the Corporation file a report in the form of an affidavit in response to the allegations made in this application within a period of one week after the ongoing Puja Vacation.

Let the matter be listed one week after the ongoing Puja vacation before the appropriate Bench.