August 19, 2026 (43) ARDR WPA 19326 of 2026 Noor Mohammad Molla Vs. The State of West Bengal & ors. Adv. Debapriya Majumder, …for the petitioner. Adv. Dilip Kumar Maiti, Adv. Maitryee Maiti, …for the private respondents. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record. The petitioner alleges that the private respondents are raising unauthorised construction without obtaining sanction from the concerned Panchayat. The petitioner submitted a representation in this regard before the concerned authority on 17th April, 2026 which is yet to be considered. The petitioner seeks consideration of the same. Denying such allegation, learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the petitioner has suppressed material facts in not disclosing the details and area of land owned by the private respondents. The private respondents are raising construction in terms of sanctioned building plan granted in their favour. It appears that a civil suit is pending between the parties wherein an order of injunction has been granted by the learned civil Court. In the event the petitioner alleges violation of said order by the private respondents, he is at liberty to approach the civil Court for redressal of his grievance. The title and possession of the plot in question cannot be dealt with by this Court in exercising extra 2 ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The private respondents have produced copy of a sanctioned plan and application made before the concerned Panchayat for raising construction. It appears that the application has been made by one Subhas Chandra Ghosh who is not one of the private respondents herein. Though the private respondents submit that the 11th respondent Anil Ghosh and Subhas Chandra Ghosh are one and the same person, no document has been submitted before the Court in support of the said contention. Therefore it cannot be said that the 11th respondent and Subhas Chandra Ghosh who applied for sanction of building plan are one and the same person. In view of the fact that the representation submitted by the petitioner is still pending, the Pradhan, Beonta II Gram Panchayat, being the 7th respondent herein, is directed to consider and dispose of the same within four weeks from the date of communication of this order upon granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the petitioner and the private respondents, in accordance with law. 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 respondents is found to be illegal/unauthorised, the concerned authority shall take necessary steps in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 3 There shall however, be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the 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.)