September 17, 2026 (31) ARDR WPA 15966 of 2026 Md. Moniruzzaman Molla Vs. The State of West Bengal & ors. Adv. Kaustav Banerjee, Adv. Ria Kundu, …for the petitioner. Adv. Md. Y. Mondal, …for the respondent no.8. Adv. Samarendra Chakraborty, Adv. Sanjana Basu, …for the State. Supplementary affidavit submitted by the petitioner is taken on record. Responding to the allegations raised by the petitioner, learned counsel for the private respondent produces a copy of the resolution taken by the Pradhan, Hadipur Jhikra I Gram Panchayat on 14th September, 2026 which records that the Panchayat would grant permission for construction of plots classified as sali and danga and the applicants were advised to take steps for conversion of the said plots to bastu. The Panchayat held that the process of such conversion would be aided and assisted by the Panchayat. Learned counsel submits that since sanctioned plan was granted by the Panchayat which was taken note of by the coordinate Bench, the construction cannot said to be illegal/unauthorised. I have considered rival contention of the parties. In observing that the private respondent possessed a sanctioned building plan, the coordinate Bench did not deal with the legality and validity of the plan. The issue of 2 conversion of the land was also not dealt with in the earlier writ petition. The petitioner herein was not a party to the writ petition and did not have the opportunity to place his contention before the Court. It is crystal clear from the resolution taken by the Panchayat that the applicants seeking to raise construction on sali and danga land were advised to take necessary steps for conversion of the said land to bastu prior to applying for such permission. It is not in dispute that the land in question is classified as sali and has not been converted to bastu by the private respondent prior to raising construction therein. Rule 26 of the West Bengal (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 2004 envisages that if any structure or building is proposed to be erected or constructed on any land recorded otherwise than as homestead land, the Gram Panchayat shall withhold permission for such erection or construction until the applicant produces an order allowing change of classification of the land by the Collector or any other competent authority having jurisdiction under any law for the time being in force. Such conversion has admittedly not been applied for. The land in question is jointly owned by the petitioner, the private respondent and other cosharers and learned counsel for the private respondent points out that the private respondent owns and occupies four decimals of land therein. If that be so, the construction raised on 4.52 3 decimals of land is in excess of the land occupied by the private respondent. Upon consideration of the material on record, this Court is of the view that since the sanctioned building plan has been granted by the Panchayat in violation of rule 26 of the 2004 Rules and the construction has been raised covering an area in excess of the portion owned by the private respondent, such construction cannot stand and is liable to be demolished. The sanction granted by the Panchayat is de hors the rules and is therefore bad in law. This Court is informed that the private respondent is a member of the Panchayat. In view of the observation made hereinabove, the Sub Divisional Officer, Barasat, being the 4th respondent herein, is directed to deal with the issue of unauthorised construction and take necessary steps in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 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.)