Calcutta High Court
FMA/212/2026 of SRI RAMCHANDRA KARURI Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 11 June 2026
Court No. 12 Item No.14 Cp FMA 212 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Sri Ramchandra Karuri Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Ms. Madhurima Basu Mr. Debabrata halder Ms. Pritha Chatterjee …… for the Appellant. Mr. Ayan Banerjee Mr. Dhiman banerjee …… for the
11.06.2026
Court No. 12
Item No.14
Cp
FMA 212 of 2026
With
CAN 1 of 2026
Sri Ramchandra Karuri
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Ms. Madhurima Basu
Mr. Debabrata halder
Ms. Pritha Chatterjee
…… for the Appellant.
Mr. Ayan Banerjee
Mr. Dhiman banerjee
…… for the Respondent No.10.
Mr. Shibojyoti Chakraborti
Ms. Riya Ghosh
Ms. Debolina Ghosh
… for the Howrah Zilla Parishad.
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 appeal arises out of an order dated December 18, 2025, passed by a learned Single Judge in WPA 24482 of 2024. By the order impugned, the learned court rejected the writ petition on the ground that the appellant had waited for a long time and allowed the construction to be carried on. Thus, any challenge to such construction at a belated stage on the ground of illegality, could not be sustained in law.
2. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that the parties are co-sharers and the construction has been made on an undivided land, without any conversion and without any sanction. Reliance has been placed on a RTI reply and record of rights.
3. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate for the respondent no. 10, submits that the land was converted from ‘Bagan’ to ‘Bastu’ sometime in 2012. Permission from the panchayat authorities had been obtained for construction of a G+1 structure. Thereafter, the zilla parishad granted further permission for one additional floor. He has produced copies of those plans before us.
4. To contradict all such submissions of Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate for the appellant has filed a reply of the SPIO and Secretary, Howrah Zilla Parishad, indicating that no sanction had been granted in favour of the respondent no. 10 for construction on Dag No.161, Mouza – Purbannapara, Domjur.
5. Learned advocate for the zilla parishad has not been able to obtain instructions.
6. We do not find any reason to keep the matter pending. The order impugned is set aside.
7. We direct the zilla parishad to look into the complaint and pass necessary orders. This order is being passed in view of the confusions created by the reply under the RTI Act.
8. In the event any portion of the construction is found to be without any plan, steps shall be taken in accordance with law, which will include demolition. While looking into the matter, the competent authority of the zilla parishad will consider the documents of the respective parties and allow them to adduce evidence.
9. Copy of the plan, if any, shall be supplied to the appellant by the concerned authority.
10. Prior to hearing, an inspection shall be carried out by the concerned engineer in the presence of the parties and a report shall be prepared and supplied to the parties.
11. This order shall not affect the merits of the partition suit.
12. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.
13. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of.
14. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)