Major unauthorised construction beyond a sanctioned plan cannot be regularised in law.

The petitioner complained of unauthorised construction at premises no. 55, Mofidul Islam Lane, Kolkata.

The Corporation had sanctioned a G+2 building, but three additional floors were allegedly constructed by respondent nos. 11 to 13.

The Corporation had issued a stop-work notice under Section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (“KMC Act”) on 13 August 2025, followed by a complaint under Section 401A; proceedings under Section 400(1) remained pending before the Special Officer (Building).

A representation by Abdul Kashem Mullick was also pending pursuant to an earlier order directing its consideration.

The police reported that the prime accused named in the FIR had not yet been interrogated.

1. Whether the pending municipal proceedings concerning the alleged unauthorised construction should be concluded expeditiously.

2. Whether the pending representation should be considered consistently with the earlier order, without delaying the municipal proceedings.

3. Whether interim measures were necessary to prevent further construction and occupation pending the municipal decision.

Section 401 of the KMC Act concerns municipal action to stop unauthorised construction, Section 401A was invoked in connection with the complaint concerning breach of the stop-work notice, and Section 400(1) governed the pending proceedings to address the alleged unauthorised construction.

The Court also applied the direction made by a Coordinate Bench in WPA 23824 of 2025, requiring consideration of Abdul Kashem Mullick’s representation after giving an opportunity of hearing.

The judgment states no further legal test or precedent; it directs that consideration of the representation must not obstruct completion of the Section 400(1) proceedings.

The Court considered the alleged construction of three floors beyond the sanctioned G+2 plan, the continuing Section 400(1) proceedings, and the delay of approximately six months before the Special Officer (Building).

It also noted that the representation remained pending under the Coordinate Bench’s order, while observing that the earlier order had been obtained without disclosing the additional construction.

To ensure both processes moved forward, the Court directed consideration of the representation in accordance with the earlier order while requiring the municipal proceedings to proceed independently and expeditiously.

Given the scale of the alleged unauthorised construction, it ordered safeguards against further building and occupation until a decision was made.

The Municipal Commissioner was directed either to decide the matter or re-delegate it to another competent Special Officer, with a decision to be made expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks of communication of the order.

The Officer-in-Charge was directed to ensure that no further construction took place and that the three additional floors remained unoccupied until the decision; a copy of the order was also to be displayed conspicuously at the premises.

The Officer-in-Charge’s personal appearance was dispensed with.