19.03.2025. 11 Ct.No.654. as WPA 7977 of 2017 Ram Prasad Das Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Ms. Papiya Chatterjee. …for the Petitioner. 1. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The present writ petition was filed in 2017, seeking a directive for the demolition of the boundary walls constructed by Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 on the southern and western sides, respectively. These walls were built without authorization and are touching the petitioner’s boundary wall perpendicularly, thereby encroaching on the petitioner’s entrance to his residential building situated on LR Plot Nos. 104, 105, 106, and 107 of Mouza-Satpalsa, J.L. No. 192 in District Birbhum. This encroachment is substantiated by the report dated April 1, 2016, submitted by the Revenue Officer of Mayureswar, Block II, following a physical inspection conducted in compliance with an order passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in WP 9234 (W) of 2015. 3. As mentioned earlier, the petitioner constructed his residential building on the above-referred plots. The petitioner claims that he erected a boundary wall around the building, leaving a gap of 5 links in breadth. He further submits that 2 Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 built two boundary walls on the southern and western sides of the building, in violation of Rules 23 and 24 of the West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 2004. These walls touch the petitioner’s boundary wall, causing significant obstruction to the ingress and egress to his residence. The petitioner approached the concerned authorities multiple times, but no effective action was taken despite these efforts. These events prompted the petitioner to file a writ petition, WP 9234 (W) of 2015, which was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on October 16, 2015. The Court directed the Prodhan, Satpalsa Gram Panchayat to consider and address the petitioner’s representation. The Prodhan was also instructed to conduct a physical inspection of the land in question to verify the truth of the allegations made by the petitioner. 4. Additionally, the Court directed that if the Prodhan determined that the private respondents had unlawfully constructed the boundary walls, he was to issue the necessary and consequential orders in accordance with the applicable laws and procedures. On the other hand, if the Prodhan concluded that the petitioner’s allegations were unfounded, he was required to dispose of the representation by issuing a reasoned order. 5. The record shows that, in compliance with the order dated October 16, 2015, the BL & LRO, along with an Amin and the Executive Assistant of the concerned Gram Panchayat, conducted a physical inspection in the presence of the petitioner, all relevant parties, and local witnesses. The 3 inspection revealed that the two boundary walls on the southern side, originating from the house of Chandi Charan Das, had touched the petitioner’s boundary wall at two points perpendicularly. Similarly, the boundary walls constructed by private respondent No. 9 on the western side of the petitioner’s building were found to have touched the petitioner’s wall. Two boundary walls of the respondent nos. 8 and 9 have encroached upon the petitioner’s entrance, completely obstructing access to his residence. 6. Upon receiving the inspection report, the petitioner submitted a joint application to both the Block Development Officer and the concerned Prodhan, requesting the demolition of the two boundary walls constructed by private respondents Nos. 8 and 9. However, despite receiving the petitioner’s complaint, no action was taken on it which prompted the petitioner to approach this Court once again with this present writ petition. 7. Ms. Chatterjee, the learned Advocate representing the petitioner, submits that the report clearly indicates that the boundary walls constructed by respondents Nos. 8 and 9 are unauthorized and are illegally encroaching upon the petitioner’s entrance in its entirety. She further contends that if no order for the demolition of these two boundary walls is passed, the petitioner will suffer serious prejudice. 8. It is undisputed that the physical inspection was carried out by the Revenue Inspector, accompanied by an Amin and the Executive Assistant, in the presence of all relevant parties. During this inspection, it was found that the boundary walls 4 constructed by private respondents Nos. 8 and 9 were touching the petitioner’s boundary wall at two points perpendicularly. The inspection report prepared by the Revenue Inspector further reveals that these two boundary walls have encroached upon the petitioner’s entrance, causing significant obstruction to the ingress and egress to the petitioner’s residence. These events lend credibility to the petitioner’s claim that the two boundary walls were constructed without leaving the required setback spaces, in violation of Rules 23 and 24 of the West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 2004. 9. Therefore, the two boundary walls constructed by private respondents Nos. 8 and 9 can be deemed illegal, and since it has been determined that these walls were unlawfully erected, there should be no obstacle for the Prodhan or the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer to demolish them, in the interest of justice and to uphold the rule of law. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned Block Development Officer to take necessary steps for the demolition of the two boundary walls constructed by respondents Nos. 8 and 9, and to complete the same positively within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Prodhan is also directed to extend full cooperation to the Block Development Officer in the execution of this order. 11. It is clarified that if the Block Development Officer deems it necessary to seek assistance from the jurisdictional police or the District Police Administration in carrying out this 5 order, he may request such assistance. In the event that such assistance is sought, the jurisdictional police or the District Police Administration, as the case may be, shall provide full support to the Block Development Officer. 12. With this observation, this writ petition is disposed of. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)