Calcutta High Court halts demolition of building on Waqf property in Kolkata

Talking about the demolition drive, one of the affected residents said, “Where will we go now? We were asked to vacate the premises overnight.”

A person identified as Kumar Saha claimed he was assaulted and chased by locals when he went to the area to check on the premises to be demolished. He told media persons, “This is Waqf property, and they are staying illegally. Previously it was a TMC party office. I was badly assaulted by the locals.” His link with the said premises or any government agency, though, could not be verified by this publication.

At the Calcutta High Court, a single bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury heard the plea against the demolition.

Representing the petitioner, Advocate Zohaib Rauf, said they had previously challenged a show-cause notice issued by the municipal authorities in relation to eviction and demolition of premises no. 51/1A and 51/1B on Satish Mukherjee Road by filing a writ petition before the court, and the matter was pending.

The petitioner claimed that during pendency of the said proceedings, civic officers visited the premises on Saturday and pasted a demolition notice under Sections 544 and 546 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.

As per the said notice, the residents were informed that the demolition work would be carried out between 11 am and 5 pm on Sunday.

The counsel appearing for the State submitted that the administration was carrying out the requisition issued by the municipal authorities.

After hearing all sides, the court ordered, “The petitioner also claims to have known of the order only when the same was pasted on the outer wall of the premises. Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the view that the municipal authorities should not proceed and implement the order of demolition… for a period of 30 days from the date of passing of the order. Since the petitioner is now aware of the order, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take such steps as available to the petitioner in law. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the order passed by the Special Officer (Building), KMC, and it shall be open to the appropriate authority to consider the scope and effect thereof, as and when the same is tested.”