Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 33430 (CAL)

SOUGANDHA MANDAL AND ORS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/18366/2026 · 2026-08-05

Suvra Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

05.08.2026 rc/ct.no.15 Item No.49 WPA No. 18366 of 2026 Sri Sougandha Mandal & Ors. Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Suchindram Bhattacharjee ..for the petitioners Mr. Indrajit Roy Chowdhury Mr. Sudipta Ghosh …for the State Mr. Sandip Das ..for the respondent no. 7 Affidavit of service filed by the petitioners is taken on record. In an earlier writ petition being WPA No. 16643 of 2021, the petitioners alleged unauthorized construction being raised by the private respondent. By an order passed on September 15, 2022, a coordinate Bench of this Court granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the authorities in accordance with law and directed the authorities to dispose of the representation, if any, filed by the petitioners within a stipulated time frame. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners submitted a representation before the Block Development Officer, Sagar, South 24 Parganas and by an order passed on February 06, 2026 the Block Development Officer has held as follows :- “Hence, perusing of the available records and hearing of both the parties, it is found that the building plan issued in favour of Manik Lal Jana is doubtful in accordance with the West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 2004 and other rules amended time to time till date.” The petitioners seek implementation of the said order. Learned counsel for the State submits that the Block Development Officer had no authority to pass the said order. Since the representation was addressed to the authority, the said authority has considered the same. Learned counsel for the private respondent submits that the private respondent has raised construction in the plot in question in terms of sanctioned building plan granted in his favour in 2010. He has been permitted to raise further construction by the learned civil court in the civil suit pending between the parties. Section 23(5) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 envisages that “Where any new structure or new building or any addition to any structure or building is being or has been erected or made, as the case may be, in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1), the permission granting authority shall refer the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned who may after giving the owner of such building an opportunity of being heard, make an order directing the demolition of the building or a portion of the building, as the case may be, by the owner within such period as may be specified in order and in default, the Sub-Divisional Officer may itself effect the 2 demolition and impose a fine as may be specified by the State Government and recover the cost thereof from the owner as the public demand.” In view of the said provision of law, the representation submitted by the petitioners ought to have been dealt with by the Panchayat authorities and not the Block Development Officer. The order impugned dated February 06, 2026 passed by the Block Development Officer is set aside/quashed. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to submit a comprehensive representation ventilating their grievance before the Pradhan, Rudranagar Gram Panchayat, being the 6th respondent herein within a week from date. The 6th respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation within four weeks from the date of receipt thereof upon granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the petitioners and the private respondent, in accordance with law. The parties shall be at liberty to produce relevant documents in respect of their respective contention before the authority at the time of hearing. The decision taken by the authority shall be communicated to the parties within a week thereof. In the event the construction raised by the private respondent is found to be illegal/unauthorised, the 3 concerned authority shall take necessary steps in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh,J) 4