Back
Censures BDO for Halting Demolition of on Plot No. 404
The has strongly pulled up the Block Development Officer (BDO) of for discontinuing the of an unauthorised structure, after the period granted for had lapsed. A Division Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee made clear that the administration could not simply halt a demolition process mandated by a .
Background of the Dispute
The case involves a piece of land—Plot No. 404, JL No. 71, Mouza-Taldi, PS Canning, South 24 Parganas—where a construction was raised without obtaining prior sanction from the competent authority. Following an earlier (WPA 18303 of 2021), the conducted a spot inspection, heard the parties, and passed a reasoned order on , holding the construction to be unauthorised. The matter was then taken up by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), , who, after hearing the parties, issued a under . The SDO directed the occupants to voluntarily remove the structure within 15 days, failing which the BDO and the Pradhan of were to carry out the demolition with police assistance.
When the occupants failed to comply, a single judge of the High Court directed the SDO to implement the . The occupants, Pritilata Gharami and others, appealed against that directive.
Appellants' Arguments
Represented by , the appellants raised two main points. First, they contended that the learned single judge erred by directing implementation without granting them an opportunity to file an . Second, they argued that they possessed a valid —but only for a commercial construction on the adjacent Plot No. 403, not for the structure on Plot No. 404.
Court's Observations and Reasoning
The Division Bench swiftly rejected both arguments. On the procedural point, the Bench noted that the appellants were represented before the single judge and that the order did not record any request by them for leave to file an affidavit.
"Thus, the first contention…cannot be accepted,"
the court held.
On the
, the Bench observed that
"the dispute is not with regard to the construction over Plot No. 403, but with regard to the
over Plot No. 404."
Consequently, the non-production of the sanction for Plot No. 403 caused no
to the appellants.
The court then turned to the conduct of the administration. It noted that the BDO, with police assistance, had actually commenced the demolition but stopped after the appellants gave an assurance that they would demolish the structure voluntarily. By that time, however, the 15-day period had already expired. The Bench remarked:
"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 , had expired."
The court added pointedly:
"We do not appreciate the conduct of the administration."
Reinforcing the need for compliance, the Bench stated:
"Under such circumstances, when there was an order of the
directing demolition of the unauthorized construction, the authorities could not have discontinued the process."
Final Decision
The High Court found that the appellants had been given adequate opportunities to present their case before both the Gram Panchayat and the SDO, and that they had failed to substantiate any right over the construction on Plot No. 404. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the
was upheld. The court directed that
"the construction on Plot No. 404, shall be demolished in terms of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer."
As for the appellants' allegation that the writ petitioners themselves had made an elsewhere, the court gave them the respondent authorities with that grievance.
The judgment serves as a clear message to administrative authorities: court-ordered demolitions cannot be put on hold once the window for voluntary compliance has closed.
