KMC Mayor Firhad Hakim denies knowledge of notices on 17 Abhishek Banerjee properties
Synopsis
Kolkata's Mayor publicly denied knowing about civic notices served on 17 properties linked to TMC general secretary Abhishek Banerjee — a striking admission that either reveals a breakdown in KMC's internal communication or signals deliberate distance-keeping as West Bengal's new BJP government tightens scrutiny on the opposition's top brass.
Key Takeaways
KMC Mayor Firhad Hakim on 20 May denied any knowledge of notices served on 17 properties allegedly linked to Abhishek Banerjee .
Notices were reportedly issued under Section 400(1) of the KMC Act, 1980 , which allows owners to contest illegal construction allegations before civic authorities.
Abhishek Banerjee reportedly said at a TMC legislators' meeting that he would 'never bow down' to the BJP-led state government.
The West Bengal BJP released a broader list of 43 properties allegedly linked to Abhishek Banerjee; TMC called it fabricated.
Mayor Hakim clarified that the KMC Commissioner , not the Mayor, holds authority over buildings department decisions.
Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) Mayor Firhad Hakim on Wednesday, 20 May denied any knowledge of the civic body serving notices on 17 properties allegedly owned or co-owned by Trinamool Congress (TMC) General Secretary and Lok Sabha MP Abhishek Banerjee. The notices were reportedly issued under Section 400(1) of the KMC Act, 1980, which grants owners of allegedly illegal constructions an opportunity to appear before civic authorities and present their case.
What the Mayor Said
Hakim, a four-time TMC legislator and former minister in the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal Cabinet, distanced himself from the corporation's action, citing the limits of his role. 'Under the KMC Act, I am just a policymaker. I have no idea about such notices. No one had informed me about this development also,' he told reporters on Wednesday afternoon.
He further clarified that the KMC Commissioner — a bureaucratic post — holds the authority to act on such matters independently. 'The Mayor of KMC cannot influence the decision of the buildings department of the corporation on which house to be demolished. The KMC Commissioner by virtue of the post had the authority to take such decisions,' Hakim said.
Abhishek Banerjee's Response
Notably, Abhishek Banerjee was present at a meeting of newly-elected TMC legislators held on Tuesday afternoon at former Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's residence in Kalighat, South Kolkata. At the meeting, chaired by Mamata Banerjee, Abhishek reportedly struck a defiant tone against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led regime now in power in the state.
'Let them do whatever they like. They can send me notices. They can even demolish my house. But I will never bow down. Come what may, I will continue my fight against the BJP,' Abhishek Banerjee reportedly said at the gathering.
BJP's Broader Property Claim
The West Bengal unit of the BJP had separately released a list of 43 properties it alleged were linked to Abhishek Banerjee. The TMC, however, dismissed the list as fabricated and lacking credibility. The KMC notices cover 17 properties within the corporation's jurisdiction — a subset of the BJP's broader claim.
Background and Context
This comes amid a sharp political transition in West Bengal, where the BJP has assumed power following recent elections, and the TMC now operates as the principal opposition. The KMC notices represent one of the earliest instances of civic scrutiny being directed at a senior TMC figure under the new political dispensation. Section 400(1) of the KMC Act does not amount to a demolition order — it is a show-cause mechanism — but the issuance of notices to a sitting MP and party general secretary carries significant political weight. Whether the KMC Commissioner acted independently or under political direction remains an open question that neither side has definitively answered.
Point of View
Or it may signal genuine institutional friction as the KMC bureaucracy responds to the new state government's political priorities. Either way, the BJP's 43-property list versus KMC's 17-notice action gap is itself a story: if the ruling party's own civic body is acting on fewer than half the properties the BJP flagged, questions of selective enforcement cut both ways. The real accountability test will come when — or if — demolition orders follow the show-cause notices.
NationPress
28 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did KMC serve notices on Abhishek Banerjee's properties?
The KMC reportedly issued notices under Section 400(1) of the KMC Act, 1980, to 17 properties allegedly owned or co-owned by TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee, citing concerns about allegedly illegal constructions. Section 400(1) is a show-cause provision that allows property owners to appear before civic authorities and present their case before any further action is taken.
What did KMC Mayor Firhad Hakim say about the notices?
Mayor Firhad Hakim said he had no knowledge of the notices and was not informed about the development. He clarified that under the KMC Act he is a policymaker, and the KMC Commissioner — a bureaucrat — holds independent authority over buildings department decisions, including on demolitions.
What was Abhishek Banerjee's reaction to the notices?
Abhishek Banerjee reportedly told a meeting of newly-elected TMC legislators on Tuesday that he would not bow down to the BJP-led state government regardless of the notices. He was quoted as saying the BJP could even demolish his house, but he would continue his fight against the party.
How many properties has the BJP claimed are linked to Abhishek Banerjee?
The West Bengal unit of the BJP released a list of 43 properties it alleged were linked to Abhishek Banerjee. The TMC dismissed the list as fabricated. The KMC notices, by contrast, cover 17 properties within the corporation's jurisdiction.
Does a Section 400(1) notice mean demolition is imminent?
No. Section 400(1) of the KMC Act, 1980, is a show-cause mechanism that gives property owners a chance to appear before civic authorities and contest allegations of illegal construction. It does not constitute a demolition order; further proceedings would be required before any such action could be taken.
