Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Partha Chakraborty
For the Respondent: Mr. Sushovan Sengupta, Mr. Subir Pal, Mr. Gazi Faruque Hossain

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. Jurisdiction of Writ Court: The court emphasized that the writ court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate private disputes. Such disputes should be resolved by a competent civil court (!) (!) .

2. Nature of Dispute: The dispute involved a boundary wall around a residential property, which is a private civil matter. The court clarified that the dispute was a private civil issue and not a matter for the writ court (!) .

3. Applicability of Section 23 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act: The court examined Section 23, which governs building operations within Gram Panchayat jurisdiction, and noted that no permission is required for constructing a boundary wall around a residential house unless it is made of brick or cement and used for commercial or institutional purposes (!) (!) .

4. Rules on Exemptions: The court referred to rules that exempt certain structures from permission requirements, such as small thatched or tin sheds, and clarified that permission is not necessary for boundary walls made of brick or cement around residential properties, provided they are not used for commercial or institutional purposes (!) (!) .

5. Factual Findings: The court found that the boundary wall was being constructed around a residential house and did not serve a commercial or institutional purpose, thus not requiring permission from the Gram Panchayat. The factual narration in the previous proceedings supported this view (!) (!) .

6. Authority of the Gram Panchayat: The court clarified that the Gram Panchayat or its Pradhan is not the proper authority to grant or refuse permission for boundary walls; instead, such authority lies with the Gram Panchayat itself (!) .

7. Decision of the Court: The court set aside the order of the Single Judge and the order passed by the Pradhan for demolition, allowing the writ petition. It reaffirmed that private rights should be adjudicated by civil courts, not the writ court (!) (!) .

8. Preservation of Private Rights: The court stated that the private rights of the parties are not interfered with and can be addressed in a civil court, emphasizing the civil nature of the dispute (!) .

9. Final Disposition: The appeal and application for stay were disposed of, and the court ordered that the order of demolition be set aside, with the case remitted for civil adjudication of private rights if necessary (!) .

These points summarize the court's reasoning and decision, focusing on jurisdiction, applicable laws, factual findings, and the proper forum for resolving private disputes.