31.08.2026 Court No. 12 Item No. 40 Sandip FMA 282 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Golam Rahaman Sekh Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Gausul Alam …for the Appellants. Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta, AGP, Mr. Niladri Saha, Ms. Madhurima Basu … for the State. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the appellant is taken on record. 2. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the respondent nos. 5 to 10. 3. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated January 08, 2026 passed in W.P.A. 17735 of 2024. 4. The appellant approached the writ Court alleging that one Akkas Sekh, son of Late Harez Sekh had raised an unauthorised construction on plot No. 813 corresponding to Khatian No. 29135 of Mouza – Babaltali, Police Station Raninagar, District – Murshidabad, without obtaining necessary permission from the Gram Panchayat and also in violation of the order of status quo passed in a partition suit. 5. It is submitted that on March 05, 2024 the Pradhan of Raninagar Gram Panchayat informed the appellant that no permission for any construction over Dag No. 813, pertaining to Khatian No. 29135, had been granted by the concerned Gram Panchayat. Upon receipt of the communication from the Gram Panchayat, complaint was lodged before the Pradhan on April 22, 2024, no steps were taken. Hence, the writ Court was approached. 6. His Lordship held that, not only was a civil suit pending, but the delay in approaching the Gram Panchayat defeated the very purpose of invoking writ jurisdiction. Delay defeated equity and on such facts and pleadings, as were there in the writ petition, a civil Court would have denied the prayer of injunction. Under such circumstances, not only did the delay disentitle the appellant to seek any relief from the writ Court, but such delay amounted to lack of bona fide, inasmuch as, the appellant allowed the construction to go on for a while and allowed it to be completed. The subsequent complaint before the Gram Panchayat could not be looked into and the issues of encroachment etc should be decided by the civil Court. 7. We are not in agreement with His Lordship for the following reasons :- (a) The civil suit which is pending is a suit for partition. (b) Admittedly, the appellant and the person responsible for the construction are co-sharers. (c) All the co-sharers have a right to enjoy the property, by occupying their respective portions and such occupation is subject to the final decree passed in the 2 suit. However, no one can raise a construction without permission. (d) Any construction on a land within the panchayat area, has to be made upon sanction being granted under Section 23 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. (e) The pendency of the civil suit does not take away the right of the panchayat authorities to deal with the unauthorised construction. (f) The proceeding initiated by the police on the allegation of violation of the order of injunction is distinct and separate. (g) When the panchayat authorities were of the view that no permission had been granted for any construction on the concerned plot, the complaint of the petitioner should have been looked into by the Gram Panchayat and steps should have been taken in accordance with law. 8. Under such circumstances, we dispose of the appeal and the application by setting aside the order of His Lordship, with a direction upon the Gram Panchayat to consider and proceed on the basis of the representation of the respondents dated April 22, 2024, in accordance with law. The parties shall be heard including the respondents Nos. 7 to 10. In the event the construction is found to be without any plan or in violation of any plan/sanction or permission, a reasoned order will be passed. The records shall be forwarded to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer for further action under Section 23 (5) of the West Bengal 3 Panchayat Act, 1973, in the event unauthorized construction is detected. The construction shall be demolished in accordance with law. 9. The law is well settled that, a civil Court does not have the authority to deal with unauthorised constructions and consequent demolitions. However, if the Sub- Divisional Officer finds that the order of the civil Court interferes with the process of demolition if the building or part thereof is found to be unauthorised, the appellant will be at liberty to approach the civil Court for necessary modification of the order of injunction. 10. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of. 11. The report of the police authorities is taken on record. 12. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.) 4