25.08.2026 Item No.21 Court No.12 (gc) MAT 1159 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 Sk. Firoz Mondal & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Lalit Mahata, Ms. Salma Sultana Shah, Mr. Sani Hossain …for the Appellants. Mr. Partha Chakraborty, Ms. Koushikee Banerjee …for the State. Mr. Debobrata Roy, Mr. Gazi Faruque Hossain, Ms. Sarbani Mukherjee, Mr. Rakib Hossain Khan …for the Private Respondents. 1. The appeal arises out of an order dated June 23, 2026 passed in WPA 22409 of 2025. By the order impugned, Her Lordship held that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Hooghly was well- reasoned and the appellants did not deserve to be protected from the order of demolition. An unauthorized construction was made on the bank of a pond (pukur par). Opportunity of hearing was given to all the parties and the appellants had failed to satisfy the Sub-Divisional Officer, that any permission had been granted by the panchayat authorities for such construction. 2. Mr. Mahata, learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer 2 and the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer were contradictory. While the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer stated that a construction was on a ‘path’ and the plot pertains to Khatian No.354, the Sub-Divisional Officer held that the construction was on L.R. Dag No.1012/1348, which fell within R.S. Dag No.1055 corresponding to Khatian No.17, Mouza - Hazipur, which was recorded as a pond. We find from the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated June 18, 2024 that steps were taken in terms of Section 23(5) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, which is quoted below:- “(5) 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 demolition and impose a fine as may be specified by the State Government and recover the cost thereof from the owner as a public demand.” 3. According to the Sub-Divisional Officer, L.R. Dag No.1012/1348 of Mouza – Hazipur was created out of R.S. Dag No.1055 pertaining to Khatian No.17. The discrepancy, if any, in the description of the land does not take away the right of the permission granting authority to act and proceed in accordance 3 with law. In respect of unauthorized constructions, the authorities have a right to demolish the same in accordance with law. Section 23 of the Panchayat Act is quoted below:- “23. Control of building operations. [(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: Provided that where the State Government or an authority or agency under the State Government intends to set up or has set up an industrial estate or industrial park within the jurisdiction of a Gram Panchayat, permission for erection of any structure or building or any addition to the structure or building for setting up an industry within such industrial estate or industrial park, shall be obtained from such authority or industrial development authority or corporation as the State Government may, by notifi-cation, specify: Provided further that such erection of a new structure or a new building or such addition to any structure or building or such permission from the Gram Panchayat shall be subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government in this be-half: Provided also that a Gram Panchayat shall not accord permission for erection of a new structure or construction of a new building, if the proposal for such erection or construction, as the case may be,— (a) has any provision for erection or construction of any dry latrine, by whatever name called, and (b) does not have any provision for erection or construction of a sanitary latrine of any description.] (2) Every person seeking permission under sub- section (1), shall make an application in writing to the Gram Panchayat in such form, containing such particulars and on payment of such fee to the Gram Panchayat, as may be prescribed: Provided that no amount in whatever name or manner other than the fees prescribed by the 4 State Government, shall be charged by the Gram Panchayat for according permission: Provided further that there shall be no restriction of covered area on construction of kuchcha and semi-pucca residential building which shall mean a single storeyed building not hav- ing concrete roof and brick wall with setback of not less than nine-tenth metre on the road side: Provided also that no permission under sub- section (1) shall be necessary subject to submission of a self-declaration for erection of any new thatched structure, tin shed or tile shed without brick wall covering an area not exceeding eighteen square metres where such structure or shed does not cover more than three-fourth of the total area of the land (including appurtenant land) and there is a setback of not less than nine-tenth metre on the road-side: Provided also that the State Government may, by order, exempt any structure or building or any class of structures or buildings from the operation of the provisions of sub-section (1) and of this sub-section: Provided also that if the building plan contains a proposal for construction of a structure for rain water harvesting on its roof, the Gram Panchayat shall allow a rebate in paying fee for permission under sub-section (1) to the applicant at such rate as may be determined by the State Government.] (3) On receipt of such application the Gram Panchayat, after making such enquiry and examination of the building plan as it considers necessary and in accordance with such rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf, shall, by order in writing, either grant the permission or refuse it, recording in the case of refusal the reasons therefor.] (4) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Gram Panchayat under sub-section (3) refusing permission or non-receipt of any intimation in this regard within the stipulated time as may be prescribed, may prefer an appeal to such appellate authority as may be prescribed: Provided that any person aggrieved by an order of the authority may prefer an appeal before the reviewing authority as may be prescribed: Provided further that no appeal shall lie against the order of the reviewing authority.] 5 (5) 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 demolition and impose a fine as may be specified by the State Government and recover the cost thereof from the owner as a public demand. (6) 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 subsection (1), the authority may, after giving the owner of such building an opportunity of being heard, make an order directing the demolition of the building by the owner within such period as may be specified in the order and in default the authority may itself effect the demolition and recover the cost thereof from the owner as a public demand.” 4. No construction within a panchayat area is permissible without sanction the Gram Panchayat. Moreover, the appellants have not been able to satisfy us with regard to any right, title and interest on L.R. Dag No.1012/1348. Record of rights have not been produced. The concerned Gram Panchayat also filed a report, before the court, which has been annexed at page 76 of the connected application and the same is quoted below:- “To The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court Bar No.13 3, Esplanade Row West, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700001 6 Subject: Declaration Regarding Plot No.1055, LR Khatiyan 17, Mouza – Hazipur, JL 16 Respected Sir/Madam, With reference to the petition filed by Sk. Asikur Hossain & Others in C.A.N. No.1 of 2025, M.A.T. No.219 of 2025, WPA No.29669 of 2024, I, on behalf of Somaspur-II Gram Panchayat, hereby declare the following: 1. No Permission or Sanctioned Plans: The Somaspur-II Gram Panchayat has neither passed any order, nor issued certificate, nor granted any sanctioned building plans in connection with Plot No.1055, LR Khatiyan 17, Mouza- Hazipur, JL 16. 2. No Official Record of Construction Approval: As per the Panchayat’s official records, no permission has been granted to Sk. Firoj Mondal, Sk. Amir Mondal, Sk. Suraj Mondal, or Sk. Dilwar Mondal to construction any house or structure on the said plot under the jurisdiction of Dhania Khali Police Station, Hooghly. 3. Verification of Property Ownership: If any construction exists under the above-mentioned names, a proper verification of land ownership details is required. However, as per our records, there is no authorization or legal sanction for any construction in their names. This declaration is being provided in response to the ongoing legal proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court and may be forwarded to our legal representative for necessary action.” 7 5. Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of Her Lordship. 6. We refer to the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in support of the contention that, an unauthorized construction cannot be allowed to remain. 7. In the matter of Supertech Ltd. v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Assn., reported in (2021) 10 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:- “160. From commencement to completion, the process of construction by developers is regulated within the framework of law. The regulatory framework encompasses all stages of construction, including allocation of land, sanctioning of the plan for construction, regulation of the structural integrity of the structures under construction, obtaining clearances from different departments (fire, garden, sewage, etc.), and the issuance of occupation and completion certificates. While the availability of housing stock, especially in metropolitan cities, is necessary to accommodate the constant influx of people, it has to be balanced with two crucial considerations — the protection of the environment and the well-being and safety of those who occupy these constructions. The regulation of the entire process is intended to ensure that constructions which will have a severe negative environmental impact are not sanctioned. Hence, when these regulations are brazenly violated by developers, more often than not with the connivance of regulatory authorities, it strikes at the very core of urban planning, thereby directly resulting in an increased harm to the environment and a dilution of safety standards. Hence, illegal construction has to be dealt with strictly to ensure compliance with the rule of law.” 8. In Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa reported in (2004) 8 8 SCC 733, the Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with a case where the builder had exceeded the permissible construction under the sanctioned plan and had constructed an additional floor on the building, which was unauthorised. The Apex Court held as follow:- “24. Structural and lot area regulations authorise the municipal authorities to regulate and restrict the height, number of storeys and other structures; the percentage of a plot that may be occupied; the size of yards, courts and open spaces; the density of population; and the location and use of buildings and structures. All these have in our view and do achieve the larger purpose of the public health, safety or general welfare. So are front setback provisions, average alignments and structural alterations. Any violation of zoning and regulation laws takes the toll in terms of public welfare and convenience being sacrificed apart from the risk, inconvenience and hardship which is posed to the occupants of the building.” 9. Unauthorised floors have been held to be a burden on general welfare, must be dealt with strictly. 10. The Apex Court observed that if unauthorised constructions were allowed to stand or are “given a seal of approval by Court”, it was bound to affect the public at large. 11. In the matter of Supertech (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court discussed the duties of the civic bodies and lamented the sorry state of affairs as under:- “167. The Court further observed that an unauthorised construction destroys the concept of planned development, and places an unbearable burden on basic amenities provided by public authorities. The Court held that it was 9 imperative for the public authority to not only demolish such constructions but also to impose a penalty on the wrongdoers involved. This lament of this Court, over the brazen violation of building regulations by developers acting in collusion with planning bodies, was brought to the forefront when the Court prefaced its judgment with the following observations : (EshaEkta Apartments case [EshaEkta Apartments Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of Mumbai, (2013) 5 SCC 357 : (2013) 3 SCC (Civ) 89] , SCC p. 363, para 1) “1. In the last five decades, the provisions contained in various municipal laws for planned development of the areas to which such laws are applicable have been violated with impunity in all the cities, big or small, and those entrusted with the task of ensuring implementation of the master plan, etc. have miserably failed to perform their duties. It is highly regrettable that this is so despite the fact that this Court has, keeping in view the imperatives of preserving the ecology and environment of the area and protecting the rights of the citizens, repeatedly cautioned the authorities concerned against arbitrary regularisation of illegal constructions by way of compounding and otherwise.” 168. Finally, the Court also observed that no case has been made out for directing the municipal corporation to regularise a construction which has been made in violation of the sanctioned plan and cautioned against doing so. In that context, it held : (EshaEkta Apartments case [EshaEkta Apartments Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of Mumbai, (2013) 5 SCC 357 : (2013) 3 SCC (Civ) 89] , SCC pp. 394-95, para 56) “56. … We would like to reiterate that no authority administering municipal laws and other similar laws can encourage violation of the sanctioned plan. The courts are also expected to refrain from exercising equitable jurisdiction for regularisation of illegal and unauthorised constructions else it would encourage violators of the planning laws and destroy the very idea and concept of planned development of urban as well as rural areas.” 169. These concerns have been reiterated in the more recent decisions of this Court in Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority v. State of Kerala [Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority v. State of Kerala, 10 (2019) 7 SCC 248] , Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority v. Maradu Municipality [Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority v. Maradu Municipality, (2021) 16 SCC 822 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3352] and Bikram Chatterji v. Union of India [Bikram Chatterji v. Union of India, (2019) 19 SCC 161] .” 12. In the same decisionSupertech (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court concluded as follows:- “172. For the reasons which we have indicated above, we have come to the conclusion that: 172.1. The order passed by the High Court for the demolition of Apex and Ceyane (T-16 and T- 17) does not warrant interference and the direction for demolition issued by the High Court is affirmed. 172.2. The work of demolition shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of this judgment. 172.3. The work of demolition shall be carried out by the appellant at its own cost under the supervision of the officials of Noida. In order to ensure that the work of demolition is carried out in a safe manner without affecting the existing buildings, Noida shall consult its own experts and experts from Central Building Research Institute Roorkee (“CBRI”). 172.4. The work of demolition shall be carried out under the overall supervision of CBRI. In the event that CBRI expresses its inability to do so, another expert agency shall be nominated by Noida. 172.5. The cost of demolition and all incidental expenses including the fees payable to the experts shall be borne by the appellant. 172.6. The appellant shall within a period of two months refund to all existing flat purchasers in Apex and Ceyane (T-16 and T-17), other than those to whom refunds have already been made, all the amounts invested for the allotted flats together with interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum payable with effect from the date of the respective deposits until the date of refund in terms of Part H of this judgment. 172.7. The appellant shall pay to the RWA costs quantified at Rs 2 crores, to be paid in one month from the receipt of this judgment.” 11 13. In the matter of Kaniz Ahmed vs Sabuddin & Ors. reported in 2025 INSC 610, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:- “5. In one of our recent pronouncements, in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others reported in 2024 INSC 990, we have made ourselves very explicitly clear that each and every construction must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the rules and regulations. In the event of any violation, being brought to the notice of the courts, the same should be dealt with iron hands and any leniency or mercy shown to the person guilty of unauthorised construction would amount to showing misplaced sympathy. In our decision referred to above, we have issued the following directions: “(i) While issuing the building planning permission, an undertaking be obtained from the builder/applicant, as the case may be, to the effect that possession of the building will be entrusted and/or handed over to the owners/beneficiaries only after obtaining completion/occupation certificate from the authorities concerned. (ii) The builder/developer/owner shall cause to be displayed at the construction site, a copy of the approved plan during the entire period of construction and the authorities concerned shall inspect the premises periodically and maintain a record of such inspection in their official records. (iii) Upon conducting personal inspection and being satisfied that the building is constructed in accordance with the building planning permission given and there is no deviation in such construction in any manner, the completion/occupation certificate in respect of residential / commercial building, be issued by the authority concerned to the parties concerned, without causing undue delay. If any deviation is noticed, action must be taken in accordance with the Act and the process of issuance of completion/occupation certificate should be deferred, unless and until the deviations pointed out are completely rectified. (iv) All the necessary service connections, such as, Electricity, water supply, sewerage connection, etc., shall be given by the service 12 provider / Board to the buildings only after the production of the completion/occupation certificate. (v) Even after issuance of completion certificate, deviation / violation if any contrary to the planning permission brought to the notice of the authority immediate steps be taken by the said authority concerned, in accordance with law, against the builder / owner / occupant; and the official, who is responsible for issuance of wrongful completion /occupation certificate shall be proceeded departmentally forthwith. (vi) No permission /licence to conduct any business/trade must be given by any authorities including local bodies of States/Union Territories in any unauthorized building irrespective of it being residential or commercial building. (vii) The development must be in conformity with the zonal plan and usage. Any modification to such zonal plan and usage must be taken by strictly following the rules in place and in consideration of the larger public interest and the impact on the environment. (viii) Whenever any request is made by the respective authority under the planning department/local body for co-operation from another department to take action against any unauthorized construction, the latter shall render immediate assistance and co-operation and any delay or dereliction would be viewed seriously. The States/UT must also take disciplinary action against the erring officials once it is brought to their knowledge. (ix) In the event of any application / appeal / revision being filed by the owner or builder against the non- issuance of completion certificate or for regularisation of unauthorised construction or rectification of deviation etc., the same shall be disposed of by the authority concerned, including the pending appeals / revisions, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than 90 days as statutorily provided. (x) If the authorities strictly adhere to the earlier directions issued by this court and those being passed today, they would have deterrent effect and the quantum of litigation before the Tribunal / Courts relating to house / building constructions would come down drastically. Hence, necessary instructions should be issued by all the State/UT Governments in the form of Circular to all concerned with a warning that all directions must be scrupulously followed and failure to do so will be viewed seriously, with 13 departmental action being initiated against the erring officials as per law. (xi) Banks / financial institutions shall sanction loan against any building as a security only after verifying the completion/occupation certificate issued to a building on production of the same by the parties concerned. (xii) The violation of any of the directions would lead to initiation of contempt proceedings in addition to the prosecution under the respective laws.” 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that her client be given one chance to pray for regularisation of the unauthorised construction. We do not find any merit in such submission. A person who has no regards for the law cannot be permitted to pray for regularisation after putting up unauthorised construction of two floors. This has something to do with the rule of law. Unauthorised construction has to be demolished. There is no way out. Judicial discretion would be guided by expediency. Courts are not free from statutory fetters. Justice is to be rendered in accordance with law. We are at pains to observe that the aforesaid aspect has not been kept in mind by many State Governments while enacting Regularisation of Unauthorized Development Act based on payment of impact fees. 7. Thus, the Courts must adopt a strict approach while dealing with cases of illegal construction and should not readily engage themselves in judicial regularisation of buildings erected without requisite permissions of the competent authority. The need for maintaining such a firm stance emanates not only from inviolable duty cast upon the Courts to uphold the rule of law, rather such judicial restraint gains more force in order to facilitate the well- being of all concerned. The law ought not to come to rescue of those who flout its rigours as allowing the same might result in flourishing the culture of impunity. Put otherwise, if the law were to protect the ones who endeavour to disregard it, the same would lead to undermine the deterrent effect of laws, which is the cornerstone of a just and orderly society.[See: Ashok Malhotra v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, W.P. (c) No. 10233 of 2024 (Delhi High Court)]” 14 14. The discrepancy in the description of the land is irrelevant, as the appellants and the private respondents were both heard and the identity of the construction has never been disputed by any party. The appellants did not raise any contention that the purported construction on the ‘pukur par’ in respect of which the compliant was lodged, was not the subject construction. All the parties and the officials identified the construction. 15. Mr. Mahato submits that the construction is a mud hut and temporary in nature. Thus, Section 23 of the Panchayat Act is not applicable here. 16. Rule 19 of the West Bengal Gram Panchayat Administration Rules, 2004 deals with exemption from permission. It states that, no permission of the Gram Panchayat would be necessary for erection of any thatched structure, tin shed, or tile shed, without brick wall, covering an area not exceeding eighteen square metres. In this case, admittedly the construction is brick walls. The Sub- Divisional Officer recorded the submission of the appellants to the effect that, the mud walls were replaced by brick walls and a tin shed. Under such circumstances, the exemption will not come of any help to the appellants. 17. It also appears that subsequently the private respondents had filed WPA 9044 of 2026 in which 15 the private respondents, as writ petitioners, prayed for implementation of the order of the Sub- Divisional Officer dated June 18, 2025. The Sub- Divisional Officer was directed to implement the his order by an order dated June 23, 2026 passed in WPA 9044 of 2026. Accordingly, the date for demolition was fixed on August 25, 2026. On account of pendency of this appeal and the order passed by us on August 24, 2026, the demolition process did not take effect. 18. We have already given our reason as to why we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and why the order of the Sub- Divisional officer should be implemented. 19. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are dismissed. 20. Interim order stands vacated. 21. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 22. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)