Calcutta High Court
WPCRC/132/2026 of JABA MALLIK AND ANR Vs LAKSHMI MANNA THE PRADHAN JANAI GRAM PANCHAYAT on 24 August 2026
24.08.2026 Court No.12 (gc) WPCRC 132 of 2026 In WPA 1171 of 2023 Jaba Malik & Anr. Vs. Lakshmi Manna Mr. Siddhartha Sarkar, Mr. Sourav Gupta … for the applicants. Mr. Amitabha Ghosh, Ms. Arpita Paul Biswas …for the alleged contemnor. Mr. Suryaneel Das …for the State.
Item No.16
24.08.2026
Court No.12
(gc)
WPCRC 132 of 2026
In
WPA 1171 of 2023
Jaba Malik & Anr.
Vs.
Lakshmi Manna
Mr. Siddhartha Sarkar,
Mr. Sourav Gupta
… for the applicants.
Mr. Amitabha Ghosh,
Ms. Arpita Paul Biswas
…for the alleged contemnor.
Mr. Suryaneel Das
…for the State.
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. The Panchayat authorities have taken a decision on August 7, 2026, pursuant to the order of the Court. It appears that the construction is under the jurisdiction of the Savapati, Chanditala – II Panchayat Samity under Chanditala Police Station. The area falls under a development authority. Thus, the Gram Panchayat does not have any power to consider the issue of unauthorized construction.
2. The applicants are aggrieved by such communication, inasmuch as, it is submitted that there was a proposal to include the area within the development authority, but whether
2 the area was thereafter included within the territorial limits of the development authority or not, is a matter which requires further deliberation.
3. In my opinion, the issue raised by the applicants cannot be decided in the contempt jurisdiction. This a fresh cause of action.
4. The applicant has the liberty to approach the appropriate forum and seek redressal of his grievances.
5. The communication filed by the alleged contemnor is taken on record.
6. Accordingly, the contempt application is disposed.
7. The contempt proceeding is dropped.
8. Rule stands discharged.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)