07.04.2026 Court No. 12 Item No. 04 Sandip IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE F.M.A. 470 of 2026 IA No : CAN 1 of 2026 Rabi Dolui -Versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Swapan Kumar Pal, Ms. Suparna Paul, Mr. Soham Pal …..for the appellant Mr. Sadhan Kr. Halder, Ms. Chandana Ghosh ….for the State. 1) Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the appellant is taken on record. 2) Service upon the respondent no. 12 could not be effected in view of the refusal of the postal article. 3) The postal article with the endorsement ‘refused’ is also taken on record. 4) Refusal is good service. Thus we proceed with the appeal. 5) Initially, the writ petition was filed with the allegation that the respondent no. 12 had raised an unauthorized construction on Plot No. 574 of Mouza Kalagram, District – Paschim Medinipur. The respondent no. 12 allegedly entered into the land of the appellant and started to raise construction without the permission of the Panchayat Authority. 6) The respondent no. 12 denied the allegation before the learned writ Court and submitted that his cousin Amit Mana had been constructing on the land under the Banglar Bari Awas Yojona. 7) His Lordship disposed of the writ petition. It was also recorded that the construction of the respondent no. 12 was on plot no. 461 and no money had been received under the Banglar Bari Awas Yojona for the said construction. 8) The issue before His Lordship was whether the construction on plot No. 461 had been raised unauthorizedly by the respondent no. 12. 9) The ownership of the plot is not relevant for the purpose of determination whether the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 had been violated in raising the construction. However, such ownership is somewhat relevant if the construction is under the Banglar Bari Awas Yojona as the permission under the said scheme had been obtained upon satisfying the authority with regard to the ownership and possession of the plot in respect of which the grant was being claimed for construction under the Yojona. 10) Under such circumstances, we modify the order of His Lordship as hereunder. 11) The appellant will approach the Panchayat authority with the allegation of unauthorized construction over plot no. 461. If such complaint is filed, the panchayat authority will cause an inspection to ascertain whether the construction has been made in accordance with the permission given by the Panchayat and if 2 such permission had been given, whether such construction is in accordance with the plan. 12) If it is found that the permission was not granted by the Panchayat Authority or that the construction was not in accordance with the permission and the construction on Plot No. 461 was not a construction under the Banglar Bari Awas Yojona, in that event, the Panchayat Authority shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 23(5) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, upon granting an opportunity of being heard to all the parties and by passing a reasoned order. 13) However, if upon inspection it emerges that the construction has been made under the Banglar Bari Awas Yojona, in that event the Panchayat authority will refer the entire matter to the concerned Block Development Officer, upon the Nirman Sahayak causing such inspection. The concerned Block Development Officer will then make an initial inspection in the presence of the parties to ascertain whether the permission had been granted for construction of a house under the Banglar Bari Awas Yojona, to the respondent no. 12 in respect of Plot No. 461. 14) While making such enquiry, the Block Development Officer shall ascertain whether the sketch plan/drawing that has been granted for such construction to the respondent no. 12 had been followed and secondly what were the documents on the basis of which the permission was granted under the scheme, for construction on plot no. 461. It is the specific case of the appellant that the construction in 3 plot no. 461 was illegal as the plot no. 461 belongs to the appellant. 15) Under such situation, the relevant documents with regard to the claim of title and possession by the respective parties shall be examined. If it is found that the construction was unauthorized, then steps shall be taken for removing the same by the Block Development Officer. Assistance from the police and the sub- Divisional Officer may be taken. However, if the Block Development Officer has, prima facie evidence that Plot No. 461 belongs to the appellant, the construction shall be removed and the parties will be relegated to a civil court for declaration of right, title and possession. Before such exercise, BL & LRO will be requested by the Block Development Officer to demarcate the plot on the basis of the documents to be produced by both parties. Each and every step to be taken by the Block Development Officer will be in presence of the parties, including the respondent No. 12 and upon hearing them. A reasoned order will be passed accordingly. 16) The entire exercise shall be completed by the authorities within a period of three months from date. 17) Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of. 18) Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) 4 (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) 5