KOLKATA: On Friday, the Calcutta High Court put a temporary hold on demolition notices issued to several buildings in Tiljala and Kasba for the next 30 days. The court has instructed the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) to conduct a hearing that includes both unauthorized building owners and their tenants.
“In the event of a demolition notice for unauthorized constructions, both tenants/occupants and building owners must be given a chance to be heard,” the High Court stated while maintaining ‘status quo’ in a series of cases challenging the KMC’s demolition orders.
The KMC commissioner has been mandated to provide an opportunity for tenants and occupants to be heard within the next 30 days.
Approximately five petitions representing properties with over 150 occupants contested the KMC’s demolition orders before the vacation bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul).
The core argument was that the KMC merely attached notices to the building walls under Section 400(1) of the KMC Act, which permits the municipal commissioner to order the demolition of structures built without the necessary approvals, without formally notifying the occupants.
The state’s representative, additional advocate general Billwadal Bhattacharyya, questioned the validity of the petitions, asserting they failed to demonstrate that the buildings were ‘sanctioned’. He added that it would be impractical to serve each occupant with individual notices.
Senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya criticized the issuance of these notices, claiming the buildings had existed for many years. “Doesn’t that imply they were sanctioned?” he argued.
Initially, Justice Dutt (Paul) indicated that the court would not suspend the demolition orders, but underscored the obligation to grant tenants a hearing. Subsequently, Bhattacharyya referred to an earlier ruling made on May 15 regarding a demolition in Tiljala, where a ground-floor manufacturing unit had a fire that resulted in two fatalities.
However, the current situation differs as the KMC had already partially demolished the building in the May 15 case before litigation, whereas no actual demolitions have occurred in the present scenario; only notices were issued under Section 400(1).
Nonetheless, Justice Dutt (Paul) noted that the notices were issued with “very short notice”. “The writ petitioners must appear before the relevant authorities within 30 days. Both occupants and owners must be served with the order,” the judge ruled.
To ensure consistency with the High Court’s prior decision, the status quo must be upheld. Municipal authorities are to collaborate with the occupants to address any hazardous portions. Nonetheless, the High Court has left the question of maintainability open.
