Municipal Authorities Cannot Execute Demolition Orders Before the Expiry of the Statutory Period for Appeal

The petitioner challenged a notice dated May 13, 2026, issued under Sections 544 and 546 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.

This notice directed the demolition of the petitioner’s property on May 19, 2026, to implement a prior demolition order dated May 5, 2026.

Although the petitioner had already preferred a statutory appeal against the May 5 order before the Building Tribunal, the municipal authorities moved to execute the demolition before the expiration of the statutory period for filing an appeal.

The petitioner argued that such "hot haste" would render the pending appeal infructuous.

The court primarily applied Sections 400(1), 400(3), and 400(4) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. Section 400(3) confers a statutory right to appeal a demolition order to a Tribunal, and Section 400(4) empowers said Tribunal to stay the enforcement of the order.

The court also relied on the principle established in Md. Yaqub @ Md. Yaqub Ansari v. Abdul Kayum & Ors. (MAT 1152 of 2023), which cautions against executing demolition orders within the appeal period.

The court applied the principle that self-imposed restrictions on exercising writ jurisdiction due to "alternative remedies" do not apply where there is a "glaring statutory infraction".

The court reasoned that because the statute expressly provides a right to appeal and a mechanism to seek a stay under Section 400, the municipality’s attempt to demolish the structure within that window constitutes a procedural violation that frustrates the petitioner's legal rights.

The court noted the notice was issued on May 13 for an execution on May 19—well before the statutory period for appeal had lapsed. It held that proceeding in such "hot haste" effectively renders the statutory right of appeal infructuous.

Regarding the respondent's argument that the petitioner should not "choose forums," the court clarified that while an appeal was pending, the immediate threat of demolition necessitated judicial intervention to preserve the subject matter of the appeal.

The High Court directed the petitioner to move the Building Tribunal for an expeditious disposal of the stay application, noting the next Tribunal date was June 24, 2026. The Court clarified it did not rule on the merits of the petitioner's right to a permanent stay, leaving that to the Tribunal. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.