Mandamus Issued to Ensure Enforcement of Municipal Demolition Orders Concerning Unauthorized Obstructions in Common Areas

The petitioners moved the High Court seeking the implementation of a demolition order dated September 24, 2025, passed by the Special Officer (Building) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC).

A proceeding under Sections 400(1) and 416 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, was initiated regarding premises no. 58/1, Suren Sarkar Road, culminating in Demolition Case No. 17-D/III/25-26.

The Special Officer found a serious violation of building rules and ordered the removal of a glass door on the open terrace to ensure accessibility for all flat owners within 30 days.

Despite a subsequent notice issued by the Executive Engineer on December 30, 2025, scheduling the removal for January 15, 2026, the municipal authorities failed to execute the order.

1. Whether the Kolkata Municipal Corporation is legally obligated to execute the final order passed by the Special Officer (Building) regarding the removal of unauthorized obstructions.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the municipal authorities to comply with their statutory duties under the KMC Act.

Section 400(1) and Section 416 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, which empower the municipal authorities to initiate proceedings and pass orders for the demolition or removal of unauthorized constructions.

Rule 117(4) of the KMC Building Rules, 2009, which pertains to building violations and the accessibility of common areas.

Once a quasi-judicial authority under the Act passes a final order that remains unchallenged, the executive wing of the Municipality is duty-bound to implement it.

The Court observed that the Special Officer (Building) had reached a definitive finding regarding the violation of Rule 117(4) and had mandated the removal of the obstruction to restore common access.

Although the KMC had issued a follow-up notice on December 30, 2025, to execute the removal, no concrete action was taken thereafter.

Since the order dated September 24, 2025, was in force and there appeared to be no legal impediment or stay against its execution, the municipal authorities had no justification for their inaction.

The respondent developer claimed no involvement in the illegal construction, having transferred the property in 2017.

The Court ordered that, as the premises is a residential complex, the municipal authorities must provide prior notice before execution and expected the proceedings for implementation to be initiated within four weeks.

The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.