Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3694
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Bivas Pattanayak, J
Asit Bag & anr. – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & ors. – Respondent
CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION W.P.A. 1944 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sayan Banerjee, Ms. Suparna Dutta
For the Respondents: Mr. Pankaj Halder, Mr. Keshab Chandra Das, Mr. Biplab Adak, Ms. Aparajita Mondal
Unauthorized construction cannot be challenged without contesting the validity of the sanctioned building plan.
Headnote:(A) Relevant laws include provisions regarding unauthorized construction and Zoning Laws as applied in the local context. The court emphasizes the lack of jurisdiction to hear the case without challenging sanctioned plans and construction authorizations.
(B) Key legal principles involve the necessity of challenging administrative decisions, which underpins the petitioners' arguments.
(C) The petitioners, co-sharers of the land, asserted unauthorized construction by private respondents since no valid building plan was issued in 2016.
(D) The core issues addressed involve the legality of construction undertaken without appropriate permissions as alleged by the petitioners. (E) The court found that subsequent sanctioning of building plans and conversion of land use rendered the petitioners' claims moot. (F) The final decision was that the writ petition lacks merit and therefore stands dismissed. (G) The parties involved include the petitioners, the State of West Bengal, and the private respondents. (H) No dissenting opinions were noted.
This writ petition is filed seeking for demolition of illegal unauthorized construction undertaken by the private-respondents over the land comprised within Plot No.5395 Mouza Shree Krishnapur, J.L. No.30 under Police Station Dhoniya Khali, District Hooghly.
The petitioners contend that they are the co-
sharers in respect of the aforesaid land-in-question. On 23rd September, 2016 the petitioners came to learn that the private-respondents without obtaining permission from the authority concerned have started to make unauthorized construction. From the order of the B.L. & L.R.O., Dhaniakhali Block and the reply to the RTI dated 14th October, 2022 it is revealed that the sanction plan has been obtained on 17th March, 2022 which presupposes that in the year 2016 there was no such permission obtained by the private-respondents for undertaking such construction. Hence, this writ petition seeking demolition of such unauthorized construction.
Mr. Sayan Banerjee, learned Advocate for the petitioners submit that order passed by the B.L. & L.R.O., Dhaniakhali Block and the reply to the RTI application would show that the permission for building plan was accorded on 17th March, 2022 which implies that in the year 2016 when the construction was undertaken by the private respondents there was no existence of any building plan sanctioned by the concerned authority. He seeks for necessary direction upon the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat for taking appropriate steps for demolition of the construction undertaken by the private respondents.
On the contrary, Mr. Pankaj Halder, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State submits that the petitioners in the present writ petition have not challenged the building plan sanctioned by the authority concerned in favour of the private respondents. Therefore, the prayer for demolition of structure is not at all maintainable in respect of construction made in accordance with building plan. He seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.
Mr. Keshab Chandra Das, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the private-respondents submit that after conversion of the classification of the land from „Sali‟ to „Bastu‟, building plan of the private respondents has been sanctioned in favour of them. Therefore, prayer in the writ petition is not at all tenable.
Previously, a writ petition was filed by the petitioners being WPA 24519 of 2016 and on 1st March, 2022 the following order was passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court:-
“On hearing the writ petition and also perusing the representation of the petitioners dated 23rd September, 2016 at page 30 of the writ petition it appears that a dispute relates to Barga recording in the name of the petitioners vis-à-vis the private respondents.
Therefore, this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition and accordingly the same stands dismissed. However, this order shall not preclude the writ petitioners to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law, if so advised.”
The aforesaid order was challenged in appeal being MAT No.608 of 2022 wherein the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 1st July, 2022 with the following directions :
“We are not inclined to enter into the merits of the dispute. We grant liberty to the appellants to make a comprehensive representation to the concerned Block Development Officer, being the respondent no.5 herein within a fortnight from date. If such representation is made within the time period indicated, the respondent no.5 shall dispose of the same in accordance with law by a reasoned order within six weeks from the receipt of the representation, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, including the appellants and the private represents herein. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the parties within a week from the date of the decision. Needless to say, if the respondent no.5 finds merit in the complaint
