Calcutta High Court
CPAN/12/2026 of DURBAL GHOSH AND ORS Vs MANISH MISHRA AND ORS on 13 August 2026
13.08.2026 Court No.24 pg. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH
JPG-01
13.08.2026
Court No.24
pg.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
SPECIAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
(From the Principal Bench)
CPAN 12 of 2026
in
WPA 1654 of 2025
CAN 2 of 2026
(Application not in file)
Durbal Ghosh & Ors.
-Vs-
Manish Mishra & Ors.
Mr. Debanjan Das
…For the petitioners
Mr. Tanuka Basu
… For the Contemnor nos.2 & SJDA
Mr. Ajay Singhal (vc)
Mr. Soumyadeep Das
… For the applicant in CAN 2 of 2026/
Respondent no.15 in WPA
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. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.
2. Perused the undated report signed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Siliguri Sub-Division.
3. The report mentions that the unauthorized portion of the building which was detected has been demolished by the person responsible in conformity with the permissible building parameters as stated by SJDA in its report dated 5th August, 2026.
4. According to the petitioners, the demolition is not in accordance with law.
5. Photographs have been produced before this Court in support of the submission that the construction in question still stands. The construction has been made over a plot of land which is classified as ‘Rupni’, i.e., agricultural land and no construction
2 could have been made thereon. Permission to convert the classification of land has not yet been obtained.
6. Submission has also been made that the land falls within the Panchayat area and the Sub- Divisional Officer does not have any authority to deal with any construction made over the said plot of land.
7. The Court is of the opinion that all the aforesaid issues raised by the petitioners cannot be gone into or adjudicated in the contempt proceeding.
8. It will be open for the petitioners to approach the competent forum for redressal of their grievances in accordance with law, if so advised.
9. The contempt application stands disposed of.
10. In view of the disposal of the contempt application, any connected application filed in connection with the same shall be deemed to have been disposed of.
11. Vikas Ruhela, Sub-Divisional Officer, Siliguri Sub-Division is virtually present. His personal appearance stands dispensed with.
12. All parties shall act on the basis of a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
13. Certified server copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Amrita Sinha, J.)