Demolition of an illegal building cannot lawfully result in eviction from the underlying property.

The petitioners challenged an order dated 25 September 2025 passed by the Commissioner, Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation, concerning alleged illegal and unauthorised construction at Premises No. 448/A, Nabapally, Salt Lake, Sector-IV, Kolkata.

A previous demolition order dated 23 August 2025 had been challenged by the petitioners in WPA 19085 of 2025. In that proceeding, the Coordinate Bench set aside the demolition order and directed the petitioners to produce the original sanctioned plan and granted them an opportunity of hearing before the Municipal Commissioner regarding the alleged unauthorised construction.

The petitioners contended that they were not afforded an adequate hearing and that their written submissions were sent by email because the Corporation’s receiving section was closed at the relevant time.

They further alleged that the Corporation was attempting, under the guise of demolition, to evict them from the property.

The Corporation maintained that the petitioners had been heard pursuant to the earlier order and that the Municipal Building Tribunal constituted under Section 295A of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006, was functional.

1. Whether the order dated 25 September 2025 passed by the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation was liable to be set aside for violation of natural justice or denial of an adequate opportunity of hearing.

2. Whether implementation of the demolition order could result in the petitioners’ eviction from the property.

3. Whether the petitioners had an efficacious statutory remedy before the Municipal Building Tribunal under Section 295A of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006.

The Court applied the principle of natural justice requiring a reasonable opportunity of hearing before an adverse administrative or municipal order is passed, while recognising that the petitioners had already been granted such an opportunity pursuant to the Coordinate Bench’s earlier order.

It further applied the legal distinction between demolition of an illegal or unauthorised structure and eviction from the underlying property: a demolition order may authorise removal of the illegal construction but cannot, by itself, dispossess the owners or occupants from their property.

The Court also recognised the statutory appellate remedy before the Municipal Building Tribunal constituted under Section 295A of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006.

The Court found that the principal grievance concerned the validity of the municipal demolition order.

Since the earlier writ proceedings had expressly directed the petitioners to appear before the Corporation, produce the sanctioned plan, and receive an opportunity of hearing, and since such an opportunity had subsequently been afforded, the Court found no procedural defect sufficient to invalidate the impugned order.

The Court also held that the municipal order did not authorise eviction: its legal effect was confined to demolition of the unauthorised building, and any attempt to evict the petitioners would not be sanctioned by law.

As the municipal order did not appear perverse and an appellate remedy was available before the Municipal Building Tribunal, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction.

The Court declined to interfere with the demolition order dated 25 September 2025, while clarifying that its implementation could extend only to demolition of the illegal or unauthorised building and could not be used to evict the petitioners from the property.

The petitioners were expressly left at liberty to challenge the order by filing a statutory appeal before the Municipal Building Tribunal under Section 295A of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006, if so advised.