25.09.2026 Ct. 3 Item No. JPG 4 Saswata IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION WPA 2443 of 2026 Shashikala Agarwal Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Saptangshu Basu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kumar Gupta Mr. Deepak Kumar Jain …For the petitioner Mr. Kunaljit Bhattacharjee, AGP Ms. Supriya Singh …For the alleged contemnor 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is retained with the record. 2. Despite service, although the State is represented, the Siliguri Municipal Corporation is not represented. 3. The present writ petition has, however, been filed for a direction upon the Siliguri Municipal Corporation to extend cooperation to the petitioner for restoration of the demolished garden structure and / or to return the seized iron grills of the petitioner. 4. It is the petitioner’s case that the petitioner is the absolute owner and is in exclusive and peaceful possession in respect of a residential premises situated at 2nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Police Station- Bhaktinagar, District – Jalpaguri. 5. It is also the petitioner’s case that there is a garden adjacent to the petitioner’s premises. The petitioner claimS that in the year 2013 by the consent from the Hon’ble Mayor the petitioner had undertaken steps for beautification and covered the open drainage adjacent to its 2 property, by setting up a garden with iron barricade. The said construction remained in existence for 13 years without any hindrance or any objection. On 22nd September 2026 at about 9. 00 a.m. a team claiming to be officials / agents of the Siliguri Municipal Corporation arrived at the spot along with JCB / earth moving machine and without any prior notice or show cause, forcibly bulldozed and demolished the said garden structure and dismantled the iron grills / barricade. 6. The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismantling of the iron grills and the demolition of the beautified garden. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find that the petitioner is not the owner of the land adjacent to her property and has no right in respect of the garden adjacent to her premises and the petitioner has no legal right to resist demolition of the beautified garden beyond her boundary wall, which falls within the exclusive domain of the municipal authorities inasmuch as the bulldozing action does not interfere with the petitioner’s personal rights and / or any part or portion of her property. 8. Without going into the issue as to whether the petitioner, at all, had been authorized by the Mayor to beautify the adjacent garden, in my view it is for the municipality to consider as to whether it is interested in retaining the garden Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed 9. The municipality is, however, directed to remove the debris and ensures that there is no interference with the egress and ingress of the petitioner. 3 10. With the above direction and observation, the writ petition is disposed of. 11. All parties shall act on the basis of server copy of this order duly downloaded from this Court’s official website. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)