Immediate Enforcement of Demolition Orders Under Writ Jurisdiction Upheld as Binding Authority to Curb Urban Infrastructure Hazards
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAT/1313/2025 of SUKANTALA SAI AND ORS Vs RABIN BANERJEE AND ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCA0380132025 |
| Date of Registration | 11-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 25-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Justice Rajasekhar Mantha; Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Bench of two judges |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing enforcement powers against unauthorized construction |
| Type of Law | Writ jurisdiction / Municipal infrastructure law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that unauthorized constructions, having been repeatedly found illegal and posing serious risks to life and municipal infrastructure, cannot be allowed to persist through further delay. Parties cannot plead ignorance or hardship after purchasing such constructions. Having granted police and civic assistance, the court’s demolition directive must be enforced within 72 hours. Any additional respite would perpetuate a gross illegality. The order for demolition under writ jurisdiction admits of no interference and must be executed forthwith. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Third parties challenged illegal third- and fourth-floor additions. A Single Bench ordered demolition; police assistance was directed when civic authorities failed to act. Appellants, representing occupiers and owners, sought six months’ respite to vacate. They refused repeated evacuation requests, risking life and limb. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court will not grant interim relief or extended vacate‐periods once demolition orders for unauthorized constructions are in place.
- Purchasers or occupiers of illegal structures cannot plead ignorance to seek adjournments.
- Police and municipal assistance directions, once issued, must be carried out within the stipulated 72-hour window.
- Courts will treat unauthorized construction as a public menace warranting immediate enforcement.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court reviewed two writ petitions: one by third parties prompting demolition, another by the landlord seeking execution against civic inaction.
- A prior order directed civic authorities and police assistance to effect demolition. Appellants ignored repeated evacuation notices.
- Unauthorized constructions strain urban infrastructure and pose life-threat risks, justifying no further delay.
- Allowing extended time would perpetuate a “gross illegality and impropriety.”
- Inherent powers under writ jurisdiction permit the court to enforce its orders without adjournment, ensuring prompt compliance.
- The court declined to interfere with the impugned demolition order and dismissed the appeal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner / Appellants
- Claimed to represent both lawful occupiers and owners of the disputed construction.
- Sought six months’ time to vacate, citing lack of alternate accommodation.
Respondent No. 1 (Landlord)
- Pointed to failure of civic authorities to execute a valid demolition order.
- Urged enforcement of court direction for demolition.
State (Municipal and Police)
- Emphasized the menace of unauthorized construction to infrastructure and public safety.
- Supported immediate demolition pursuant to earlier orders.
Factual Background
Parties litigated illegal additions to the third and fourth floors of a building since 2020. The High Court, on third-party challenge, ordered demolition of unauthorized structures. Following civic inaction, the landlord’s writ secured police assistance in March 2025. Appellants then sought six months to vacate. Their refusal to obey evacuation notices led the court to dismiss the appeal and mandate demolition within 72 hours.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Court upheld established enforcement powers against unauthorized constructions.