07.08.2026 rpan/02 MAT 1149 of 2026 + IA No.: CAN 1 of 2026 [Stay] Md. Sadek Ali & Others – Versus – The State of West Bengal & Others and IA No.: CAN 2 of 2026 [Addition of Party] + IA No.: CAN 3 of 2026 [Leave] In Re.: Gaffar Ali - Applicant Mr. Manoj Kumar Roy, Mr. Sk. Anwar Ali, Ms. Ruma Bera … for the Appellants. Mr. Dibasish Basu, Ms. Sneha Dutta, Mr. Suraj Mishra … for the State/Respondents. Mr. M. Maity, Ms. M. Sarkar … for the Writ Petitioner/ Respondent no.9. Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be taken on record. The present appeal has been preferred challenging an order dated 23rd June, 2026 passed in a writ petition, being WPA 5453 of 2026. Records reveal that the said writ petition was preferred by one Abdur Rahman Mehedi, being the respondent no.9 herein primarily praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondent nos.2 to 7 ‘to take immediate and effective steps for removal and demolition of the illegal and unauthorized pucca construction raised by the private respondent nos.9 to 11 over the petitioner’s land situated at Mouza Tentulia, JL No.114, LR Khatian No.764, RS & LR Dag Nos.92 and 93 without any delay’. The said writ petition was first taken up for hearing on 17th March, 2026 and as service upon all the respondents was not complete, the matter was adjourned to 8th April, 2026. It thereafter appeared on 10th April, 2026 and upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the writ petitioner, the State authorities, the respondent no.8 as well as the respondent nos.9 and 11 in the writ petition, the Officer-in-charge, Duttapukur Police Station, being the respondent no.7 herein was directed to cause a detailed enquiry and submit a report disclosing as to how the ‘private respondents can use land of the petitioner as party office though they have no right over said land’. Subsequent thereto, the matter was taken up on 18th May, 2026 and adjourned to 23rd June, 2026. On the said returnable date, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent no.8, 9 and 11. Upon hearing the petitioner and the State respondents, the respondent no.7 was directed ‘to take necessary steps for removal of the party office, if present, on the land of the petitioner and submit a report before this Court by three weeks from date’. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal has been 2 preferred by the respondent nos.9 and 11 to the writ petition on 14th July, 2026. In the midst thereof, an enquiry was conducted by the respondent no.7 and a demolition programme of a party office which was situated at the land of the writ petitioner/respondent no.9 was fixed and on the said date the structure was demolished in the presence of the BDO, Barasat – 1 (Executive Magistrate). Let the said report as filed by Mr. Basu, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State/respondents be kept on record. In connection with the present appeal an application for stay, applications for addition of party as added appellant being IA No.: CAN 1 of 2026, IA No.: CAN 2 of 2026 and IA No.: CAN 3 of 2026 respectively have been filed. Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Judge failed to appreciate that the writ petition was filed suppressing the actual fact that the writ petitioner /respondent no.9 purchased the property in question in the year 2023 and prior to such purchase, the party office was existing on the said land. For such misrepresentation and suppression of material facts, the writ petition itself was not maintainable. 3 He further argues that the order was obtained behind the back of the appellants without proper service and before appropriate steps could be taken, the structure was demolished causing immense loss to the appellants. The demolition took place without granting an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Mr. Basu, however, denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Roy and submits that an enquiry pursuant to the order impugned was conducted by the police authorities in presence of the appellants and upon perusal of all the materials on record, the decision towards demolition was taken and ultimately, the structure existing on the said land was demolished on 15th July, 2026. Mr. M. Maity, learned advocate enters appearance on behalf of the writ petitioner. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. In the writ petition the respondent nos. 8, 9 and 11 appeared when the matter was taken up on 10th April, 2026. In the said order it was recorded inter alia that ‘on query being posed to the learned advocate representing the respondent no.8 relating to right of the said respondent no.8 over the land in question it could not be substantiated that 4 respondent no.8 or respondent nos.9 & 11 have right over the land in question’. Thereafter, when the matter appeared on 18th May, 2026, the writ petitioner’s learned advocate was directed to serve notice upon the respondent nos.8 to 11. On the returnable date none appeared on behalf of the respondent nos. 9 to 11, the appellants herein. Such fact was duly recorded by the learned single Judge and thereafter, an order was passed upon the respondent no.7 herein to take necessary steps for removal of the party office, if present on the land of the writ petitioner. The structure was thereafter demolished on 15th July, 2026. No explanation is forthcoming as to why in spite of notice the appellants did not appear before the Court on the returnable date i.e., 23rd June, 2026 and as why they waited for about 20 days to file the appeal. The order impugned in the present appeal has already been acted upon. In view thereof, the appeal itself has become infructuous and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, the other connected applications, being IA No.: CAN 1 of 2026, IA No.: CAN 2 of 2026 and IA No.: CAN 3 of 2026 are also dismissed. It is made clear that nothing in this order will prevent the appellants from taking necessary steps 5 before the competent forum, if so advised and in accordance with law. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 6