September 24, 2026 (10) ARDR CPAN 1193 of 2026 In WPA 17006 of 2026 Shyamali Tripathi & ors. Vs. Subrata Pradhan & ors. Sr. Adv. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Adv. Golam Mastafa, Adv. Kazi Asif Iqbal …for the applicants/petitioners. Adv. Prosenjit Mukherjee, …for the alleged contemnor (Pradhan). Affidavit of compliance submitted by the alleged contemnor/Pradhan is taken on record. The applicants/petitioners have alleged that in the garb of compliance of the order of this Court, the residential houses of the applicants/petitioners in Dag no. 9737 have also been demolished in addition to the construction in Dag no. 9736. Denying such allegation, learned counsel for the alleged contemnor submits that the unauthorised construction in Dag no. 9736 has been demolished in compliance with the order under contempt. No demolition has been made in Dag no. 9737. The report of the Pradhan and the Revenue Inspector as well as the sketch map appended to the same demonstrate that Dag no. 9736 was demarcated prior to compliance with the order under contempt. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to hold that the order under contempt has been complied with. Since the applicants/petitioners allege that their residential houses and other allied structure in Dag no. 2 9737 have been demolished at the instance of the Block Development Officer, they are at liberty to take necessary steps for redressal of their grievance in accordance with law. The contempt application is accordingly disposed of. There shall however, be no order as to costs. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J.)