IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APELLATE SIDE The Hon’ble JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH WPA 17268 of 2026 Shib Prasad Patra & Anr. v/s. The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the Petitioners: Mr. Sounak Bhattacharjee Mr. Partha Sarathi Mondal Mr. Chandra Nath Sarkar Mr. Sounak Mondal Mr. Kingsuk Mondal For the State: Mrs. Tapasi Palit Sinha Mr. Suman Chattopadhyay For the Private Respondents: Mr. Kaustav Banerjee Ms. Ria Kundu Mr. Suradeep Goswami Hearing concluded on: 23.07.2026 Judgment delivered on: 05.08.2026 SUVRA GHOSH, J. :- 1. The petitioners have assailed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Diamond Harbour on 8th July, 2026 directing them to remove the unauthorised construction as well as the debris and other material within a stipulated time frame failing which the Block Development Officer, Mathurapur-II Development Block has been authorised to remove 2 the said unauthorised construction and recover the entire cost for the same from the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners being owners and occupiers of L.R. Plot No. 3488 in mouza- Raidighi raised construction therein upon obtaining sanctioned building plan from the concerned Panchayat and leaving statutory side space. The private respondents submitted a representation before the concerned Panchayat alleging that the construction raised by the petitioners was without leaving mandatory open space. Since the representation was not considered, the private respondents approached this Court in a writ petition being WPA 11319 of 2022. By an order passed on 26th July, 2022 a coordinate Bench of this Court directed the concerned authorities to consider and dispose of the representation after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties within three months from the date of communication of the order and further held that if the construction was found to be either in violation of the plan sanctioned or devoid of sanctioned plan, necessary steps should be taken in accordance with law. A contempt application was filed by the private respondents for non compliance of the said order wherein an affidavit of compliance was submitted annexing copy of the reasoned order passed by the authority in compliance with the direction of the Court. The private respondents alleged that mandatory side open space was not left in making the construction and the Pradhan had no authority to sanction a plan for construction of a G+4 storied building. This Court directed a spot 3 inspection in presence of the parties to ascertain the exact measurement of the side space that was left open, height of the building sanctioned and the actual height of the building standing on the spot. The contempt application was disposed of on the ground of several disputed facts being involved and the private respondents were granted liberty to apply before the appropriate forum for necessary relief, if permissible in law. A subsequent writ petition was filed by the private respondents being WPA 322 of 2024 seeking demolition of unauthorised construction raised by the petitioners and by an order passed on 28th October, 2025 a coordinate Bench of the Court directed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Diamond Harbour, South 24 Parganas to consider the issue of unauthorised construction allegedly raised by the petitioners therein upon following certain procedure. In compliance with the said order, the order impugned has been passed. 3. Learned counsel submits that sanctioned building plan was granted in favour of the petitioners in terms of which the construction was raised. The order of demolition has been passed for the reason that the plinth area of the construction is 163.33 sqmts. which is more than 150 sqmts. and the Panchayat Samiti is the appropriate authority to sanction the plan. The Sub-Divisional Officer has held that the Gram Panchayat had no authority to sanction the plan without the plan being vetted by the Panchayat Samiti. According to learned counsel, since the petitioners were granted a sanctioned building plan by the Panchayat, they cannot be made to suffer due to procedural laches of the Panchayat. Though 4 Section 114(B) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1973) envisages that sanction for a construction/ building having plinth area of more than 150 sqmts. but upto 300 sqmts. and height upto 6.5 mts in any area within the jurisdiction of any Gram Panchayat under the area of a Panchayat Samiti shall be granted by the Panchayat Samiti, the proviso to Section 114(B) reads that such permission by the Panchayat Samiti shall be subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf. Since no such rule is in place till date, the application submitted by the petitioners under Section 23(1) of the Act of 1973 is in accordance with law and sanction granted by the Panchayat in terms thereof is legal and valid. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the application seeking sanction should have been filed under Section 114(B) of the Act of 1973 and not under Section 23 of the Act. Since the Panchayat had no authority to grant the sanction without sending it to the Panchayat Samiti for vetting, the sanction is in violation of Rule 27 of the West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 2004. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment delivered by an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in MAT 1556 of 2024 on 19th August, 2024 in support of his contention. 5. It appears from the report submitted by the State that the Sub-Divisional Officer has passed the impugned order on the ground that the construction was raised without permission of the Panchayat Samiti in terms of Section 114(B) of the Act of 1973. 5 6. I have considered the rival contention of the parties and material on record. 7. It shall be useful to reproduce Section 23(1) and Section 114(B) of the Act of 1973. “23(1)- No person shall erect any new structure or new building or make any addition to any structure or building having plinth area of not more than 150 square metres and height not more than 6.5 metres in any area within the jurisdiction of a Gram Panchayat except with the previous permission in writing from the Gram Panchayat. 114(B)- No person shall erect any new structure or new building or make any addition to any structure or building having plinth area of more than 150 square metres but up to 300 square metres and height up to 6.5 metres in any area, other than any area of an industrial estate or industrial park or an area in respect of which the State Government has, in the public interest, by notification, declared a Development Plan or its intention to prepare and publish a Development Plan within the jurisdiction of any Gram Panchayat under the area of a Panchayat Samiti as mentioned in section 114A, except with the previous permission in writing of the Panchayat Samiti: Provided that such erection of new structure or new building or such addition to any structure or building or such permission of the Panchayat Samiti shall be subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf:” 6 8. According to the 2004 Rules, such application needs to be submitted in Form- 4 before the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat. There is no separate prescribed form indicated for submission of a plan for sanction before the Panchayat Samiti. However, Rule 27(1A) clearly demonstrates the manner of processing an application submitted before the Gram Panchayat. The Rule explicitly says that an application for construction of a new structure or building having plinth area of more than 150 sqmts. but less than 300 sqmts. shall be sent with all documents to the Panchayat Samiti for vetting. The rule imposes a clear embargo on the Gram Panchayat to grant sanction for construction of a structure/building having plinth area of more than 150 sqmts. without the application being vetted by the Panchayat Samiti or the Zilla Parishad having jurisdiction. 9. Admittedly the plinth area of the construction raised by the petitioners is 163.33 sqmts., that is, more than 150 sqmts. It is also not in dispute that the plan was sanctioned by the Panchayat without having it vetted by the Panchayat Samiti as required under Rule 27(1A). Even if it is held that an application could not have been filed by the petitioners before the Panchayat Samiti directly in absence of a form specified for the same, the application filed by them ought to have been sent to the Panchayat Samiti by the Gram Panchayat for vetting. The Gram Panchayat lacked jurisdiction in granting such sanction, as held by the Hon’ble Division Bench in MAT 1556 of 2024 referred to above. 7 10. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Diamond Harbour had rightly held that the construction raised by the petitioners is illegal and unauthorised and is liable to be demolished. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned which requires interference by this Court. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly the writ petition being WPA 17268 of 2026 is dismissed. 12. The petitioners are directed to remove/demolish the unauthorised construction raised by them within 15 days from date failing which the Block Development Officer, Mathurapur-II Development Block shall take necessary steps in terms of the order impugned dated 8th July, 2026. 13. There shall however be no order as to costs. 14. Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. 15. Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance with the usual formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J)