Item No.03 14.09.2026 Court. No. 12 Sandip MAT 721 of 2026 With CAN 3 of 2026 Ranjit Konai VS The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Saikat Chatterjee, Mr. Isteyak Ahmed … for the Appellant. Mr. Indrajit Roy Chowdhury, AGP, Mr. Jaydipta Mandal … for the State. Mr. Amal Kumar Banerjee … for the private Respondent Nos.8 &9. Re : CAN 3 of 2026 1. CAN 3 of 2026 is an application for restoration of the MAT 721 of 2026 along with applications, which were dismissed for default on July 01, 2026. 2. Considering the averments made in Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said application, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from attending the Court when the matter was taken up and thereafter dismissed. 3. The restoration application is allowed. 4. The appeal and the applications are restored to its original file and number. Re : CAN 1 of 2026 5. CAN 1 of 2026 is an application for condonation of delay of 29 days in preferring the appeal. 6. Upon perusal of the averments made in paragraphs 3 to 7, we are satisfied that the delay has been sufficiently explained. 7. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2026 is allowed. 8. The appeal is regularised. Re : MAT 721 of 2026 9. The appeal arises out of an order dated February 10, 2026 passed in W.P.A. 29872 of 2025. 10. By the order impugned, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the dispute between the parties was private in nature and did not have any public law element. The writ jurisdiction could not be invoked in view of the alternative forum already availed of by the appellant for ventilating his grievances. 11. The allegation of the appellant was that the construction was made by the private respondents in the absence of any sanction plan and in absence of any permission from the panchayat authority. His Lordship observed that, as the private respondents had produced the sanction plan nothing remained to be decided by the writ Court. The said permission was granted in 2019. We disagree with His Lordship on the finding that, if a person raised a plea of unauthorised construction belatedly, any complaint with regard to the same would be hit by the principles of waiver, acquiescence and absence of bona fide. Under such circumstances, equitable relief could not be granted to such parties who complained of unauthorised constructions after allowing a construction to remain for a considerable period. 12. We also disagree that the issue involved did not have any public law element. Pendency of a suit cannot denude the panchayat authority from taking steps under Section 23 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 and in the event a 2 complaint is lodged, proceedings should be initiated as per the law. 13. However, we are in complete agreement with His Lordship on the finding that, the question of unauthorised construction could not be decided on the basis of the pleadings and prayers in the writ petition. The appellant had drawn the attention of this Court to the inaction of the panchayat authority in disposing of a representation by which it was alleged that the respondents were making a construction without any permission and sanction. When the respondents produced the sanction His Lordship held that nothing further remained to be decided. 14. Two issues are involved. One is of unauthorised construction and other is construction in violation of the order of injunction passed by the civil Court. With regard to the construction being raised in violation of the order of the civil Court, the issue is already pending and the appellant has adequate remedy. With regard to the allegation of unauthorised construction in the absence of a sanction from the gram panchayat, we find that there is a sanction. 15. Whether the sanction plan had been followed or not, was not the subject matter before His Lordship. Under such circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order impugned. 16. However, the observations of His Lordship with regard to delay, acquiescence, waiver and absence of bona fide on account of a belated complaint and the further view that public law element was absent in the issues raised, we set aside the same. 3 17. The appellant shall not be precluded from alleging violation of the sanction plan by filing appropriate application before the appropriate authority, upon providing proper particulars. The appellant will be entitled to obtain a copy of the sanctioned plan, from the gram panchayat’s office. 18. Accordingly, the appeal and the application are disposed of. 19. 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