Calcutta HC Division Bench Upholds Demolition of Unauthorised Construction on Plot No. 404, Taldi, Rebukes Administration for Halting Process

A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissed an appeal against a single Judge’s order directing the Sub-Divisional Officer, Canning to implement a demolition order for an unauthorised structure on Plot No. 404, and criticised the Block Development Officer for stopping the demolition mid-process.

A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, comprising Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee, on 10 September 2026 dismissed an appeal filed by Pritilata Gharami and others against an order of a learned single Judge passed in W.P.A. 11371 of 2026 on 25 August 2026. The single Judge had directed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Canning Sub Division to implement a demolition order passed under Section 23(5) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 against an unauthorised construction raised over Plot No. 404, J.L. No. 71, Mouza-Taldi, P.S. Canning, South 24 Parganas. The Division Bench found no merit in the appeal, confirmed that the appellants had been given adequate opportunities at every prior stage, and expressed its disapproval of the administration stopping the demolition process after it had already commenced.

The Dispute Before the Division Bench

The appellants challenged the single Judge’s direction to implement a demolition order that had been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer following a chain of proceedings stretching back to W.P.A. 18303 of 2021. In that earlier writ petition, the Calcutta High Court had on 31 October 2022 directed the competent authority to enquire into an allegation of unauthorised construction and to pass a reasoned order after giving all concerned parties an opportunity of hearing.

Acting on that direction, the Taldi Gram Panchayat conducted a spot inspection, heard the parties, and by order dated 28 October 2025 (Ref. No. TGP/1474A/C.C/25) held that the construction over Plot No. 404 was made without prior sanction from the competent authority and was therefore unauthorised. The panchayat records, together with this finding, were sent to the Sub-Divisional Officer for action under Section 23(5) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973.

The Sub-Divisional Officer heard all parties—including the present appellants—and passed a reasoned order. He found that the private respondents had failed, despite sufficient opportunity, to produce any valid sanction plan or permission for the construction on Plot No. 404. He concluded that the construction was unauthorised and liable to be removed.

The Two Contentions Raised by the Appellants

Before the Division Bench, counsel for the appellants, Mr. Biswarup Biswas, raised two principal arguments. First, that the single Judge ought not to have directed implementation of the demolition order without first granting the appellants an opportunity to file an affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition. Second, that there were relevant documents—specifically, a sanction plan—that could not be produced before the single Judge at the time of hearing.

The Division Bench rejected both contentions. On the first point, the Bench noted from the record that the appellants were represented before the single Judge and had not prayed for liberty to file an affidavit-in-opposition. The argument that they were denied an opportunity therefore did not arise.

On the second point, the Bench examined the document the appellants sought to rely on. It was a sanction that had been granted in respect of a commercial construction on Plot No. 403. The Bench pointed out that the dispute was not about Plot No. 403 at all—it concerned the unauthorised construction on Plot No. 404. Non-production of a sanction plan for Plot No. 403 had caused no prejudice to the appellants, since it was irrelevant to the subject matter of the proceedings.

The Bench’s Reasoning on Adequacy of Opportunity

The Division Bench traced the procedural history to demonstrate that the appellants had been given repeated opportunities to place their case on record. They were heard before the Taldi Gram Panchayat during its spot inspection and hearing process. They were also present before the Sub-Divisional Officer when he conducted proceedings under Section 23(5) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973.

At neither stage did the appellants produce any document establishing a right to the construction on Plot No. 404, or any valid sanction for it. The Sub-Divisional Officer, after carefully perusing the inspection report, hearing records, and the Gram Panchayat’s reasoned order, found no material before him to displace the panchayat’s findings. The Division Bench found no basis to interfere with this chain of decisions.

The Bench added that the appellants’ counsel had also contended that the writ petitioners themselves had made unauthorised constructions without any action being taken against them. The Bench noted this grievance but stated that the appellants were at liberty to approach the respondent authorities separately to ventilate that complaint. It was not a ground to stay or reverse the demolition order against the appellants.

Disapproval of the Administration’s Conduct

A significant portion of the Bench’s order addresses the conduct of the Block Development Officer, Canning-I Development Block, and the police. The Sub-Divisional Officer’s order had required the appellants to remove the unauthorised structure voluntarily within 15 days of communication. If they failed to do so, the Block Development Officer and the Pradhan, Taldi Gram Panchayat were directed to proceed with demolition without any further reference to the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Officer-in-Charge, Canning Police Station was directed to provide police assistance.

Senior Government Advocate Mr. Souvik Nandy informed the Division Bench that after the 15-day period had expired, the Block Development Officer and police had in fact begun the demolition process. However, they stopped when the appellants gave an assurance that they would carry out self-demolition voluntarily.

The Division Bench was unsparing in its view of this: “We fail to understand how the Block Development Officer, Canning-I and the police authorities could stop the process of demolition when the period allowed to the appellants for self-demolition, had expired.” The Bench said it did not appreciate the conduct of the administration. It observed that when a Constitutional Court had directed demolition of an unauthorised construction, the authorities could not have discontinued the process on the basis of an assurance from the party whose obligation to self-demolish had already lapsed.

Section 23(5) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973

Section 23(5) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 is the provision under which the Sub-Divisional Officer exercised authority to order demolition or removal of the unauthorised structure. The proceedings before the panchayat and the Sub-Divisional Officer were both conducted in compliance with directions issued by the Calcutta High Court in earlier writ and contempt proceedings. The Division Bench’s order confirms that this statutory pathway, followed with opportunity of hearing at each step, is sufficient basis for a demolition direction.

Order

The Division Bench disposed of both MAT 1481 of 2026 and CAN 1 of 2026. It directed that the unauthorised construction on Plot No. 404, J.L. No. 71, Mouza-Taldi, P.S. Canning, South 24 Parganas shall be demolished in terms of the Sub-Divisional Officer’s order. The appeal and the connected application were disposed of accordingly.