Calcutta High Court
MAT/1624/2026 of RADHASHYAM DAS AND ORS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 30 September 2026
Court No. 12 Item No. 13 Sandip MAT 1624 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Radhashyam Das & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Suman Sengupta, Mr. Dip Jyoti Chakraborty, Mr. Chitrak Biswasl …for the appellants. Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta, AGP, Mr. Niladri Saha …for the
30.09.2026
Court No. 12
Item No. 13
Sandip
MAT 1624 of 2026
With
CAN 1 of 2026
Radhashyam Das & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Suman Sengupta,
Mr. Dip Jyoti Chakraborty,
Mr. Chitrak Biswasl
…for the appellants.
Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta, AGP,
Mr. Niladri Saha
…for the State.
Mr. Arun Khutia,
Mrs. Debjani Sahu
…for the respondent no. 7.
Mr. Debasish Das
…for the respondent nos. 9-13.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. We are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Her Lordship has rightly appreciated the provisions of Section 23(5) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973.
2. The construction on Plot No. 214/684 of Mouza – Jagatpur, J.L. No. 435 was declared to be unauthorised by the gram panchayat. As the gram panchayat issued a demolition notice, the same was challenged before the writ Court. The writ Court rightly held that the panchayat was bound to send the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer for actions to be taken under Section 23(5) of the said Act.
3. Accordingly, the order impugned is upheld.
4. The appeal and the connected application are dismissed.
5. The contention of Mr. Sengupta that the appellants have a plan in respect of a construction, appears to be in respect of single-storeyed commercial building, which was allegedly sanctioned in respect of plot no. 214/581. The said construction was not the subject matter of the writ petition.
6. The other allegation that the plan was sanctioned in favour of the appellant on an agricultural land, without any conversion, can be raised before the appropriate authority.
7. The demolition process shall be restricted to the construction on Dag No. 214/684.
8. 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.) 2