Prolonged resistance and failed challenges disentitle an occupant to further opportunity for self-demolition.

The petitioner sought protection against demolition of an alleged unauthorised structure at Premises No. B/1/H/1 (portion), Paikpara Raja Manindra Road, Ward No. 004, Borough-I, Kolkata

The Special Officer (Building), Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC), had directed demolition of the structure by the person responsible at his own cost within fifteen days by order dated 31 March 2007

The petitioner’s appeal before the Municipal Building Tribunal, registered as Appeal No. 38 of 2007, was dismissed on 16 May 2011

A subsequent writ petition and the connected appeal, MAT 1565 of 2011, also did not result in any stay against demolition

On 18 August 2026, KMC affixed a notice under Sections 544 and 546 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, stating that demolition would be carried out by KMC workmen on 25 August 2026

The petitioner sought four weeks’ time to vacate the premises and an opportunity to undertake self-demolition

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted four weeks’ time to vacate the premises before enforcement of the demolition order

2. Whether, after the prolonged and unsuccessful challenge to the demolition order, the petitioner should be given a further opportunity to carry out self-demolition of the unauthorised structure

3. Whether KMC could proceed with demolition in accordance with law on the appointed date pursuant to the notice issued under Sections 544 and 546 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980

The Court applied the statutory enforcement framework under Sections 544 and 546 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, under which the municipal authorities may take steps for enforcement of a lawful demolition order after issuing the requisite notice

The Court also applied the principle that discretionary relief, including additional time or an opportunity to comply voluntarily, may be refused where the party has repeatedly resisted enforcement, has failed before the statutory appellate forum and the High Court, and has not obtained any order staying demolition

The Court noted that the demolition order had remained operative since 31 March 2007 and had survived dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal before the Municipal Building Tribunal, as well as the subsequent writ proceedings and MAT 1565 of 2011, in which no stay had been obtained

Despite the passage of more than nineteen years from the original order, the petitioner had neither voluntarily demolished the unauthorised structure nor secured any order restraining its enforcement

In these circumstances, the Court held that the petitioner’s continued resistance disentitled him to any further indulgence, whether in the form of four weeks’ time to vacate or an opportunity for self-demolition.

KMC was therefore entitled to enforce the existing demolition order in accordance with the statutory notice and applicable law

KMC was granted liberty to proceed with demolition in accordance with law on the appointed date

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without granting the relief sought by the petitioner