Item 24 06.08.2026 Court. No. 12 Cp/GB MAT/1283/2026 IA NO: CAN/1/2026, CAN/2/2026, CAN/3/2026 YASHREE APPAREL PRIVATE LIMITED VS SANTANU HALDER & ORS. Mr. Debabrata Ray Mr. Gazi Faruque Hossain Mr. Bikash Chowdhury Ms. Sarbani Mukhopadhyay …..for the appellant. Ms. Madhurima Basu …..for the State. Mr. Mit Guha Roy Ms. Sneha Saha Mr. Sayan Sarkar ……for the respondent no.1. Mr. Tapash Kr. Mondal Mr. Partha Sarathi Basu …..for the zilla parishad. Re: CAN 1 of 2026 1. CAN 1 of 2026 is an application for leave to appeal from the order dated April 8, 2026, passed in WPA 21966 of 2023. 2. The appellant was not a party to the writ proceeding. The order impugned is contrary to law and likely to affect the interest of the applicant. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2026 is allowed. Leave is granted to maintain the appeal. In Re: CAN 2 of 2026 2 3. This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. 4. Having considered the averments in paragraphs 2 to 4, we are satisfied that the delay has been explained properly. 5. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. 6. CAN 2 of 2026 is allowed and disposed of. 7. The appeal is regularized. RE: MAT/1283/2026 8. In the writ petition, Her Lordship called for three reports. It emerged that the construction was made without any permission from the zilla parishad. 9. It is submitted by Mr. Mondal, learned advocate for the zilla parishad, upon instructions from the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer that the land in question was classified as a ‘road’, and was recorded in favour of the State of West Bengal. 10. Her Lordship was of the view that there were sufficient materials which would indicate that the person responsible for the construction had done so illegally and on government land. 11. Upon considering the facts and circumstances, Her Lordship directed the Superintendent of Police, Diamond Harbour 3 Police District to take up the matter in collaboration with the District Magistrate and demolish the illegal building which stood on the said piece of land. Her Lordship further directed that the Secretary of the concerned department should also be informed about the order. The entire demolition was directed to be concluded within two weeks. 12. The appellant claims to be a tenant in the disputed building. According to the appellant, the law pertaining to demolition has not been followed and the order is perverse. Consequential steps taken by the District Magistrate is also legal. 13. We agree with the appellant to the extent that the police authorities, in collaboration with the District Magistrate, could not be directed to break down the construction without following due procedure prescribed by law. This observation of us does not amount to a declaration that the construction should be protected. Before a construction is demolished, the law provides a particular mode and manner in which the proceeding is required to be initiated. 14. Accordingly, we set aside the order impugned for the following reasons:- 4 A) Her Lordship came to a conclusion that the land was a government land, and directed demolition, without referring to the law. B) The order is based on a police report, which could not be the basis to direct demolition. C) Whether the land will fall within the purview of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 or under the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962, will have to be determined first, for proceedings to be initiated. D) The police in collaboration with the District Magistrate do not have any authority to demolish the structures, before the procedure laid down by law is complied with. 15. Learned advocate for the respondent/complainant submits that the person responsible for the construction, who is the owner of the premises and under whom the appellant claims to be a tenant, was given a number of notices by the District Magistrate but, he did not turn up. Thus, the contention of the appellant that no hearing was held, is not correct. It is further submitted that the appellant 5 is an imposter and fake documents have been created in order to establish his locus. 16. In our view, these aspect need not be gone into. Any unauthorized construction on government land will have to be demolished but, in accordance with the applicable law. 17. Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal and the connected applications with a direction upon the District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas to first decide whether the demolition proceeding and removal of encroachment will have to be carried out under the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 in the event the construction is on a highway or under the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962, in the event, the construction is on government land. Steps shall be taken in accordance with the provisions of the applicable law and all interested parties will be heard. 18. The authority will cause an inspection in the presence of all the interested parties, in order to ascertain whether the construction is on the highway or on a government land, and thereafter, proceed with the steps prescribed by law and pass necessary orders, including an order of removal of encroachment and demolition, if the allegations of encroachment and illegal construction are proved. The entire 6 exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. 19. The steps that have been taken by the authority pursuant to the order which we have set aside, are declared to be null and void. 20. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application being CAN 3 of 2026 are disposed of. 21. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)