Apurba Sinha Ray, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the Learned Single Judge in WPA No. 16276 of 2021. The relevant factual matrix may be narrated as hereunder:-

a) The writ petitioner is one of the beneficiaries of Hafiz Jamaluddin Wakf Estate situated at 151, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata – 700073 (hereinafter ‘the said premises’ in short). As illegal construction was going on at the said premises, the Wakf Board issued a letter to the Commissioner of Police and on 26.11.2015 passed a resolution with certain directions upon the mutwallis. On or about 02.05.2016 a learned Single Judge passed an order on the writ application against the respondent nos. 5 and 6 being the muttwallis, restraining them from transferring any portion of the said premises. On or about 23.06.2016 the Kolkata Municipal Corporation issued notice purportedly under Section 401 for carrying out demolition work.

b) The private respondents, that is, the joint mutawallis in violation of the sanctioned plan were carrying on unauthorized construction at the said premises which may be summarized hereinbelow:-

“ (i) Extension of RCC roof on the ground floor, 1st floor, 2nd floor, 3rd floor and 4th floor with open terrace on the 4th floor;

(ii) Change in the nature and character of the car parking space which was converted into a shop;

(iii) The said premises being residential in nature was used for the commercial purpose without any sanction of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.”

c) On or about November 13, 2017, the respondent nos. 5 and 6, that is , mutawallis were convicted in Case No. M/F/455 of 2016 for such unauthorized construction.

d) Thereafter being aggrieved and prejudiced by such unlawful construction, the writ petitioner being the appellant herein, lodged complaints with the authorities including respondent no. 1 Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short KMC) and consequently the Corporation issued a stop work notice to the private respondents in terms of Section 401 and intimated the said fact to the appellant/writ petitioner by letter dated 17.11.2017. After a prolonged persuasion and by virtue of an application under Section 6(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2006, the appellant/writ petitioner came to know from the respondent no. 3’s letter dated 22.01.2019 to the effect, interalia:

i) Earlier the owner of the said premises made unauthorized construction of extension of RCC roof at ground floor, 1st floor, 2nd floor, 3rd floor and 4th floor with open terrace at 4th floor. There was a change of user by converting car parking space to shop and also 1st floor and 2nd floor was converted from residential use to commercial use without sanction.

ii) Stop work notice under Section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 was served upon the person responsible on 23.06.2016.iii) After receiving approval from MIC through Mayor-in-Council a demolition programme was taken up on 18.01.2018 at 11.00 a.m. under Burrabazar Police Station and the unauthorized construction was demolished to some extent. The person responsible again constructed the illegal structure at the portion where the illegal constructions had been demolished.

iv) Thereafter again infringement list D-sketch plan and other relevant papers were sent to the higher authority for necessary action under Section 400(8) of the Kolkata Municipal Act, 1980.

2. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, even after having furnished the Information as aforesaid, the respondent Corporation did not take any further step in respect of such unauthorized construction. The private respondents acted as per their own whims and fancies by engaging in illegal and unlawful construction at the said premises in violation of the sanctioned plan. All efforts to restrain the private respondents fell in deaf ears. As a result, the appellant/writ petitioner filed WPA No. 16276 of 2021 praying for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 to 4, i.e., KMC and its officers, to act and/or to consider the complaints lodged by the petitioner regarding illegal construction made at Premises No. 151, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata – 700073 and also for preventing the respondent nos. 5 and 6 from making any further construction at the said premises etc. along with prayers for injunction.

3. After hearing the parties the Hon’ble Single Judge passed the following order:-

“It appears that a proceeding had been initiated under Section 400(8) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 some time in 2019. However, subsequent reports of inspection by the Corporation reveal that structures have been again reconstructed after the demolitions and the building is now fully occupied. The building is situated at 151, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata 700073, Ward No.42, Borough-V of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Although, the proceedings were initiated sometime in 2018 and a demolition programme was undertaken sometime in July 2018, the demolition could not be concluded. The proceeding has died its natural death in view of inability of the Corporation to execute its own demolition order, in accordance with law.

Report filed by the Corporation reveals that during inspection, it was found that the persons responsible had reconstructed the entire demolished portions and further demolition was made on September 5, 2019.

The petitioner was again informed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 sometime in September 2021 that the demolition was under process.

Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Corporation submits that due to the pandemic situation and the resistance by the occupants and other local persons, the demolition could not be carried out. He submits that the condition of the building in question and the nature of illegal construction as on date, have to be verified upon joint inspection.

Mr. Sinha, learned advocate for the respondent nos.5 and 6 submits that an application for regularisation of the unauthorised construction made on December 26, 2019, is pending before the Corporation.

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Corporation must proceed afresh in accordance with law with regard to unauthorized constructions which had once been detected at premises no.151, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata 700073. While doing so, the Corporation shall adhere to the following procedure: -

a) An inspection of the premises will be made in the presence of the parties. As there are allegations of a continuing offence, this Court deems it fit to fix the date of inspection on May 5, 2022 at 12 noon. Advance notice of the inspection need not be served upon the petitioner, the respondent nos.5 and 6 and upon the occupants and/or other interested parties, as this order shall operate as a notice.

b) In case, it is found on preliminary inspection that there may be reasons to believe that the construction was without permission and was continuing, the authorities may take such interim measures, by stopping such construction.

c) The report of such inspection shall be prepared along with the sketch map, indicating the extent and nature of unauthorized construction, if any.

d) Such report, if prepared, shall be handed over to the parties.

e) A hearing shall be given to the petitioner, the respondent nos.5 and 6 and a representative of the occupants and/or other interested parties. The parties must also be allowed to furnish their written objection/version to the said report and adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their contentions before the competent authority. All points raised by either party, will be decided. All documents filed by either party, shall be exchanged.

f) A reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to the parties. On the basis of what transpires at the hearing and during inspection, the proceedings shall be reached to its logical conclusion in terms of the statute. The court has not gone into the merits of the claims and the issues involved shall be decided independently.

It is made clear that all the parties should cooperate with the inspection. A copy of this order shall be affixed on the premises in question by the petitioner as also the Corporation, which shall be treated as communication of the order to the inmates. No further notice of inspection shall be given and if the Corporation requires police assistance, such assistance shall be provided.

The application for regularization which has been filed by the respondent nos.5 and 6 shall also be decided simultaneously in the proceeding. Such direction shall not be construed as an observation on the right of the said respondents to get such construction regularized.

The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of inspection.”

Submission from the bar

4. Learned Counsel Mr. Arindam Banerjee appearing for the appellant has submitted that the Learned Single Judge’s observation that the previous demolition proceeding has died its natural death in view of inability of the Corporation to execute its own demolition order, in accordance with law, is based on an erroneous premises, since the law of the land speaks about such issues otherwise. It is unheard of that if the KMC authorities did not pursue its own order due to connivance with the respondent nos. 5 and 6, the said demolition proceeding can be said to have died its natural death. The Learned Counsel has referred to the case law reported in (2013) 5 SCC 336 (paras 24 to 29) (Dipak Kumar Mukherjee Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.) in support of his contention that there is no need to start a denovo demolition proceeding if the person responsible reconstructed the relevant building or portion of the building beyond sanction plan even after demolition was carried out. According to him it is not the law of the land that if a person responsible puts up a new illegal construction after his previous illegal construction was demolished as per demolition order of the municipal authorities, the municipal authority is under an obligation to pass a demolition order afresh. In this regard he has relied upon the principle enunciated in the above case law which clearly holds that the person responsible is not entitled under law to pray for regularization of the portion of the building after the same was dismantled by virtue of a previous demolition order.

5. Learned Counsel of the appellant has also referred to the case law reported in 2021 (10) SCC 1 [LQ/SC/2021/2960 ;] (Supertech Limited Vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Others) (paras 156 onwards) to buttress his argument that collusion between the person responsible and the municipal authorities should not stand in the way of demolishing the unauthorized construction/illegal construction in accordance with the previous demolition order which was passed by the municipal authorities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, according to the learned counsel of the appellant, has clearly laid down that illegal construction has to be dealt with strictly to ensure compliance with the rule of law. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this court to paragraph no. 162 of the said judgment wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to quote the observation of Hon’ble Chief Justice A.N. Ray (as His Lordship then was) in K. Ramadas Shenoy V. Town Municipal Council, Udipi. (1974) 2 SCC 506 [LQ/SC/1974/227] wherein it was observed that the municipality functions for public benefit and when it “acts in excess of the powers conferred by the act or abuses those powers then in those cases it is not exercising its jurisdiction irregularly or wrongly but it is usurping powers which it does not possess”.

In the said judgment the case of G.N. Khajuria Vs. DDA (1995) 5 SCC 762 [LQ/SC/1995/861] was also referred to wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it was not open to the Delhi Development Authority to carve out a space, which was meant for a park, for a nursery school.

6. In the case of Supertech Ltd (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also quoted the observation made in the case of Friends Colony Development Committee Vs. State of Orissa (2004) 8 SCC 733 [LQ/SC/2004/1251] which is as follows:-

“164. In Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa this Court dealt with a case where the builder had exceeded the permissible construction under the sanctioned plan and had constructed an additional floor on the building, which was unauthorised. R.C. Lahoti, C.J., speaking for a two- Judge Bench, observed: (SCC p. 744, para 24)

"24. Structural and lot area regulations authorise the municipal authorities to regulate and restrict the height, number of storeys and other structures; the percentage of a plot that may be occupied; the size of yards, courts and open spaces; the density of population; and the location and use of buildings and structures. All these have in our view and do achieve the larger purpose of the public health, safety or general welfare. So are front setback provisions, average alignments and structural alterations. Any violation of zoning and regulation laws takes the toll in terms of public welfare and convenience being sacrificed apart from the risk, inconvenience and hardship which is posed to the occupants of the building”

7. Learned Counsel then submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Estates International Private Limited Vs. State of Assam (2010) 2 SCC 27 has been pleased to observe as hereunder:-

"55. It is a matter of common knowledge that illegal and unauthorised constructions beyond the sanctioned plans are on rise, may be due to paucity of land in big cities. Such activities are required to be dealt with by firm hands otherwise builders/colonisers would continue to build or construct beyond the sanctioned and approved plans and would still go scot-free. Ultimately, it is the flat owners who fall prey to such activities as the ultimate desire of a common man is to have a shelter of his own. Such unlawful constructions are definitely against the public interest and hazardous to the safety of occupiers and residents of multi-storeyed buildings. To some extent both parties can be said to be equally responsible for this. Still the greater loss would be of those flat owners whose flats are to be demolished as compared to the builder."

8. According to the learned counsel of the appellant the connivance between KMC and respondent nos. 5 and 6 is palpable. The unauthorized construction which was demolished and thereafter was reconstructed by the respondent nos. 5 and 6 should be dealt with iron hands and there is no provision for regularization of an unauthorized structure which has been made after demolition of the previous illegal structure made beyond the sanctioned plan.

9. Learned Counsel has also referred to the case law reported in (1999) 6 SCC 532 [LQ/SC/1996/1314] (Ram Awatar Agarwal and Ors. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta and Ors.) in support of his contention that prayer for regularization of the reconstruction beyond sanctioned plan made by the respondent nos. 5 and 6 in collusion with the KMC authority is nothing but a ploy to delay the demolition process which was previously undertaken by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.

10. Learned Counsel has also referred to case laws reported in 1982 SCC OnLine Cal 81 (Ram Awatar Agarwal and Ors. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta and Ors.) wherein Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta has been pleased to observe that where a power is given to do a certain thing in certain way the thing must be done in that way and not in any other method and further, that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.

11. Learned Counsel has prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Learned Single Judge dated 04.04.2022 and has prayed for necessary order in terms of the prayer of the writ application.

12. Learned Counsel appearing for the KMC Mr. Achintya Banerjee has categorically denied the allegation of any sort of collusion between the KMC authorities and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The Learned counsel has referred the case law reported in (2006) 8 SCC 590 [LQ/SC/2006/924] (Muni Suvrat-Swami Jain S.M.P.Sangh Vs. Arun Nathuram Gaikwad and Ors.) in support of his contention that the Municipal Commissioner has the discretion under the KMC Act to order or not to order demolition of an unauthorized structure. In this regard the following observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been referred to”:-

“57. According to the appellants, the Municipal Commissioner and his subordinate officers have been made aware that the construction of the temple has not violated in any manner the FSI Rule. However, the proposal submitted for regularising the construction of the temple was not granted on account of the mandatory order issued by the High Court as also on the ground that 12 feet access is not available for the temple plot from A.H. Wadia Marg. It is also submitted that in the event of the appellant succeeding the suit filed before the Bombay City Civil Court, they would get the 12' wide access to the temple plot in which event it would not be impossible for the appellant to get their proposals approved. In our opinion, Section 351 obliges the Municipal Commissioner if the construction of any building or the execution of any work is commenced contrary to the provisions of the Act to give notice requiring the person doing the work to show cause why it should not be pulled down. The word used in this context is shall. If sufficient cause is not shown it is left to the Commissioner's discretion whether or not to demolish the unauthorized construction and, therefore, the High Court in our opinion, cannot impede the exercise of that discretion by the issuance of a mandatory order. We, therefore, direct the Commissioner to decide the question as to whether he should pass an order for demolition or not.”

13. By placing the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in connection with Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, learned Counsel for KMC has further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge was correct and in accordance with observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned above. Learned counsel also referred the case law reported at AIR 2008 Supreme Court 690 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Ganeshi Lal) to persuade this court wherein The Hon’ble Supreme Court denoted the observation made in Herrington v. British Railways Board, (1972 (2) WLR 537) that “there is always peril in treating the words of speech or judgment as though they are words in legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of a facts of a particular case.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court further holds that “Circumstantial flexibility one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper.” The Learned Counsel has also produced the Regulation of KMC published on June 20, 2015 in support of his contention that minor deviations will be determined by the Municipal Commissioner or the officers delegated by him in consideration of the factors mentioned in clause 4 of the said Regulation.

14. Learned Advocate Mr. Soumya Majumder for the respondent nos. 5 and 6 has submitted that the impugned judgment and order has been rightly passed by the learned Single Judge as the present respondents have already filed an application for regularization of the impugned structure and the same is pending before the concerned municipal authority. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 used to reside far away from the said premises and they engaged contractors for construction but unfortunately the said contractors constructed the building beyond sanctioned plan. However, in a proceeding before the Ld. 4th Municipal Magistrate Court at Kolkata the respondent no. 5, Fariduddin Ahmed has been convicted and sentenced to pay a sum of Rs. 2500/- in default simple imprisonment for 10 days only. The respondent has paid the fine amount. Learned counsel has further pointed out that as the prayer for regularization of the building is pending, the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned judgment giving direction to the municipal authorities to consider the cases of the parties and to take steps in accordance with law. According to learned Counsel there is no impropriety in the judgment and in this regard he has referred the decision reported at (1980) 2 SCC 593 (paras 72 and 73) (Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd & Ors. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha &Ors). By referring to the said judgment the learned Counsel has submitted that appellate Court interferes with the impugned order only when the order appealed from is merely not right but only when it is clearly wrong. There is no serious impropriety in the impugned judgment and therefore this court should not interfere with the judgment and order dated 04.04.2022 passed in WPA No. 16276 of 2021.

15. Learned Counsel has also pointed out that the prayer for considering additional documents as made by the appellant/writ petitioner should not be considered since the same were not produced before the Learned Single Judge at the time of hearing of the writ petition:

Court’s View

16. At the very outset we would like to note the prayers in the writ application being No. 16276 of 2021:-

a. Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 to 4 (KMC and its officers and the officer-in-charge Burrabazar Police Station) to act and/or consider the complaints lodged by the petitioner regarding illegal construction made at premises No. 151, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata.

b. Writ in the nature of prohibition preventing the private respondents from making any further construction at the premises No. 151, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata until disposal of the writ petition; c. Writ in the nature of prohibition preventing private respondents and/or their servants, agents and assigns from disposing of and/or alienating and/or encumbering and/or pertaining with possession of premises no. 151, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata to any third party until disposal of the writ petition.

d. Writ in the nature of certiorari……

e. Injunction directing the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to take immediate action against the respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 and/or to stop further construction being carried on at premises No. 151, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata.

f. Injunction restraining the respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 and/or their servants, agents and assigns from disposing of and/or alienating and/or encumbering and/or pertaining with possession of premises no. 151, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata to any third already until disposal of the writ petition.

g. Injunction directing the respondents to carry out the investigation into the alleged illegal construction as to whether the construction was made in terms of the plan sanctioned by the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 or was at variance with such plan.

h. Ad-interim order in terms of prayers (f) to (h)…..

16.1. We have already noted in paragraph 3 hereinabove, the directions of the learned Single Judge which disposing of the writ petition.

17. If we make a comparative study of the prayers made in the writ application and the directions issued by the Learned Single Judge, the said directions cannot be said to be irrelevant in view of the prayers of the writ application. By such directions the municipal authorities have been directed to proceed afresh in accordance with law in respect of the unauthorized construction which had once been detected at premises no. 151, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata – 700 073. This observation goes to show that the Learned Single Judge was not unmindful regarding the previous demolition order passed by the KMC and the Learned Single Judge directed the Corporation to re-commence its action in respect of such unauthorized construction which was detected on earlier occasion and in doing so the Corporation was asked to make an inspection of the premises to ascertain whether the unauthorized construction is still existence and such inspection of premises should be held in presence of the parties to the proceedings. The Learned Single Judge has also pointed out that if it is found on preliminary inspection that there was unauthorized construction the Corporation may take such interim measure as it deems fit, after stopping such construction if it is at all going on. However, the Learned Single Judge by subsequent directions had allowed the KMC authorities to reconsider the prayer of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 for regularization and also the contention of the petitioner. The Learned Judge has further allowed the parties to submit oral and documentary evidence in support of their contentions. The Learned Judge has also asked the competent authorities to pass a reasoned order.

18. After considering the case laws cited by both the sides it appears to me that the Courts have zero tolerance towards unauthorized construction. The judicial decisions also point out that any unauthorized construction or construction beyond sanctioned plan accorded by the municipal authorities should be dealt with, with iron hands since such unauthorized constructions have become a menace to our civilized society and the same puts in jeopardy the planned development of our cities and towns. For the purpose of proper adjudication of the instant ‘lis’, it would be helpful if we peruse the admission of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 regarding the alleged unauthorized construction which they have stated on oath in their affidavitin-opposition to the application for stay filed by the appellant/petitioner.

19. In page 6, para 7 (f) to (h) it has been stated as hereunder:-

(f) The answering respondents do not reside at the said property and/or near its vicinity. Inasmuch as the answering respondents had reposed complete faith and trust in the said contractor, the answering respondents did not periodically check the construction of the proposed building at the said property by the contractor.

g) It appeared that the said contractor had deviated from the sanctioned building plan and had constructed the proposed building with the following irregularities:

i. Extension of RCC roof at the ground, first, second, third and fourth floors with open Terrace at fourth floor;

ii. Change of user of car parking space to shop room at the ground floor;

iii. Change of user from residential to commercial at the first and second floors;

h) Owing to the aforesaid irregularities, the Respondent authorities issued a notice dated June 23, 2016 purportedly under section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 to the answering respondents. Subsequently on June 23, 2016 and July 4, 2016, the Respondent authorities lodged a First Information Report with the Burrabazar Police Station against the answering respondents purportedly under Section 401(a) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. Inasmuch as the answering respondents do not reside at the said property or near its vicinity, the answering respondents were unaware of such notice issued by the Respondent authorities and the First Information Report lodged by the Respondent authorities. The answering respondents had come to know of such aforesaid developments when the Respondent authorities proceeded to demolish a part of the construction of the proposed building at the said property. It is pertinent to mention that on the basis of such complaint lodged by Kolkata Municipal Corporation, a case being M/F Case No. 455 of 2016 (State Vs. Md. Fariduddin Ahmed) was initiated before the Learned Municipal Magistrate, 4th Court at Kolkata wherein by a judgment dated October 13, 2017 the said Learned Magistrate was pleased to dispose of such proceeding by directing your petitioner No.1 to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/-. Such fine was duly paid by the answering respondent no. 5. A copy of the said judgment dated October 13, 2017 is annexed hereto and marked as "R-3".

20. Moreover, the said respondents have also stated in paragraph (t) at page 11 of the said affidavit that they had also prepared an area calculation sheet in respect of the reconstructed building showing a minor deviation of FAR consumed when compared to permissible F.A.R. In view of such deviations being minor in nature the answering respondents decided to apply for regularization of the constructed building. A copy of the said FAR calculation sheet is annexed to the affidavit and marked as R9.

21. Therefore from the above it appears that, the respondent nos. 5 and 6 have already admitted that there are deviations from the sanctioned building plan in respect of extension of RCC roof at the ground, first, second, third and fourth floors with open terrace at 4th floor. They have also admitted the change of user of car parking space to shop room at the ground floor. They have also admitted that there is a change of user of the first floor and second floor from residential to commercial purpose. They have also admitted that there was a deviation of 316.73 sq.m. in the said building and for which a regularization prayer was made. In this regard, it may be recalled that KMC Authorities also mentioned in the letter dated 22.01.2019 (issued by respondent No. 3) that the respondent nos. 5 and 6 again constructed the illegal work of erection at those portions where the illegal constructions were demolished.

22. In view of such admitted factual aspects, the question is whether such prayer for regularization of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 can be accepted by the municipal authorities particularly when a demolition proceeding was undertaken and unauthorized construction was demolished and thereafter again unauthorized construction was made on the selfsame portions by the persons responsible.

23. In view of the case laws mentioned above viz Supertech Ltd.(supra), Dipak Mukherjee’s case (supra), Ram Awatar Agarwal and Ors (supra), I am of the view that when a portion of a building raised unauthorizedly was demolished by the municipal authorities, the person responsible has no right under law to reconstruct the said building once again and thereafter to apply for regularization of the same. If we allow such attempts, then unscrupulous persons will not allow any demolition proceeding to come to an end. The unauthorized constructions at the instance of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 have been clearly established and in this regard the conviction of respondent no. 5 by the Learned Municipal Magistrate is a strong material from which we can understand the desperate attitude of the said respondent nos. 5 and 6 for the purpose of evading the law of the land. It is unfortunate that knowing fully well that demolition process against the unauthorized construction made at the behest of respondent nos. 5 and 6 at the said premises was carried out and there is no scope for regularization of such unauthorized reconstructed building beyond the sanction plan, the KMC has kept the prayer for regularization made by the respondent no. 5 and 6 pending from the year 2016. The subsequent directions given by the Learned Single Judge from (e) to (f) in the relevant judgment, in my opinion, cannot be sustained and if we allow the said directions to stand, there would be no end of demolition proceedings of any unauthorized construction since unscrupulous persons will reconstruct the unauthorized construction even after its demolition, and thereafter, will pray for regularization.

24. Therefore, we are constrained to set aside the impugned judgment and order. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 are directed to consider the complaints of the writ petitioner/appellant in accordance with law. The respondent nos. 5 and 6 are directed not to make any further construction at premises no. 151, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata, except in accordance with a sanctioned building plan and the KMC authorities are directed to take appropriate steps against the unauthorized construction which was once detected, demolished and subsequently reconstructed at the behest of respondent nos. 5 and 6 beyond the sanction plan in accordance with law within eight weeks from this day. The connected applications if any, are disposed of.

25. Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all the requisite formalities.

26. I agree.