Asking for Time to Produce Documents Is Not an Admission of Unauthorised Construction, Rules Calcutta High Court
Case: Sujoy @ Sujay Sarkar v. Howrah Municipal Corporation and Others
Date of Judgment: 10 November 2026
Court: Calcutta High Court
Coram: Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya
Proceedings: WPA 31462 of 2026
Court Observation
“On perusal of the document at page 129 issued by the petitioner, it does not appear that there was an admission on the part of the petitioner relating to unauthorized construction made by him. Rather, petitioner prayed for time to submit documents in respect of such construction.”
Summary
The Calcutta High Court has set aside a demolition order passed by the Howrah Municipal Corporation, holding that a letter relied on by the civic body as an “admission” of unauthorised construction contained no such admission. The petitioner, Sujoy @ Sujay Sarkar, had challenged a demolition order dated 28 September 2026 passed by the Assistant Engineer, Borough-II, of the Corporation, acting on a complaint by a private respondent. One of the reasons recorded in the order was that the petitioner had admitted in writing that the construction was unauthorised.
Examining the very document relied on — a writing dated 3 April 2025 annexed at page 129 of the writ petition — the Court found that it merely sought time to produce documents in support of the construction. The Court set aside the demolition order and directed the Assistant Engineer to hear the petitioner and the complainant again, allow them to produce relevant documents, and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks. The Court has not ruled on whether the construction is lawful; that question is left to the municipal authority on fresh consideration.
Key Holdings
- A request for time to produce documents in support of a construction is not an admission that the construction is unauthorised.
- A demolition order is among the harshest steps a civic body can take against a property owner, and it must rest on a correct reading of the record relied on.
- Where a statutory authority relies on a misreading of a key document, the usual writ-court remedy is to set aside the order and remand the matter for a fresh, reasoned decision after hearing both sides.
- The order does not decide whether the construction is lawful; that question is left to the municipal authority on fresh consideration.
Directions Issued
- The demolition order dated 28 September 2026 is set aside.
- The Assistant Engineer, Borough-II, Howrah Municipal Corporation, is to hear the petitioner and the complainant (respondent no. 7) within eight weeks and pass a reasoned order.
- Both the petitioner and the complainant are at liberty to produce relevant documents in support of their cases.
- No order as to costs.
Background
The Corporation had acted on a complaint lodged by the private respondent and passed the demolition order on 28 September 2026. The Corporation defended the order on the ground that the petitioner had not produced any relevant document during the hearing to show that the construction was authorised; the complainant also pointed to a civil suit filed by the petitioner that was pending before the civil court. The petitioner submitted that no admission about the nature of the construction had ever been made before the Corporation.
Related Articles
- Unless Order Of Demolition Specifically Indicates Extent Of Unauthorised Construction, It Cannot Be Implemented: Calcutta HC
- Two Ghaziabad Towers Must Be Demolished as Illegal, Rules Allahabad High Court
Click here to read the full judgment/order
Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.
