12.06.2026 M/L No.95 Court No.12 (gc) FMA 1775 of 2025 CAN 1 of 2025 Saraswati Pal & Ors. Vs. Sri Soumen Dutta, Secretary, Nadia District Zilla Parishad & Ors. Mr. Tulshi Das Ray, Mr. Tirthankar Roy …for the Appellants. Mr. Amitava Chaudhuri, Mr. N. Roy …for the Nadia Zilla Parishad. 1. Affidavit-of-service is taken on record. 2. The appeal arises out of an order dated July 17, 2025, in a contempt proceeding being CPAN 1156 of 2022 arising out of WPA 9122 of 2021. By the order impugned, the learned Judge recorded that there had been substantial compliance of the order passed in the writ petition and there was no wilful, deliberate and contumacious violation of the order of Her Lordship. 3. Her Lordship also held that, the demolition process of the unauthorized portion had commenced and upon demolition of certain portions, the engineers of Nadia Zilla Parishad, Public Works Department, Nadia Division, the Block Development Officer and the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, opined 2 jointly that further demolition may cause damage to the adjoining structures and may not be feasible. According to Her Lordship, whether such opinion was correct or not, could not be looked into in the contempt jurisdiction and if the appellants were aggrieved by such report, the appellants should approach the appropriate court. The appellants were granted liberty to challenge the opinion of the authorities, in accordance with law. 4. The appeal has been preferred on the ground that Her Lordship has deviated from her own order and refused to exercise jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 5. We find that in the writ petition, it was directed that if the respondent authorities were of the opinion that the construction was in violation of a plan or devoid of any sanction plan, necessary steps shall be taken in accordance with law. 6. Admittedly, there has been substantial unauthorized construction. The authorities did not demolish the entire construction on the ground that further demolition would affect the stability of the structure and other adjoining structures. 3 7. Her Lordship left it open to the appellants to challenge such report/opinion before the appropriate forum. Her Lordship was of the view that further enquiry into such opinion would be beyond the scope of the jurisdiction arising in a contempt proceeding. We are in agreement with Her Lordship. 8. Orders in contempt are quasi criminal in nature. Thus, the violation of the order has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Her Lordship recorded that the authorities did not intentionally disobey the order, but carried out the demolition to the extent it was feasible. Now, whether the opinion of the engineers was correct or not, could not have been dealt with under the contempt jurisdiction. Her Lordship rightly relegated the appellants before the appropriate forum. The appellants have the liberty to do so. 9. The engineers are supposed to be expert. In an appeal from the order of Her Lordship, we cannot take into consideration these factual aspects and it is open for the appellants to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 4 10. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of without any interference. 11. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 12. Parties are to act on the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)