SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 4918

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
SUBRATA MAITI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. – Respondent
WPA 22082 / 2025



##PAGE1##

Sl. No.164

22.12.2025

Suman

Ct. 15

WPA 22082 of 2025

Subrata Maiti

Vs.

The State of West Bengal and Ors.

Mr. Subhajit Das

Ms. Debapriya Ghosh

..for the petitioner

Mr. Rajarshi Basu

Mr. Anirban Dutta

..for the State

The petitioner seeks demolition of a shop room

situated on Plot Nos. 902 and 903 under Mouza

Kismat Apurbapur, J.L. No. 51, P.S. Singur, District

Hooghly.

It is admitted that the petitioner purchased

land adjacent to the shop room in question in the

year 2021 and that the said shop room was already

in existence prior to such purchase. The petitioner

now alleges that the shop room was constructed in

violation of Rule 31(1)(b) of the West Bengal Gram

Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules,

2004.

##PAGE2##

2

It is, therefore, contended that the Panchayat

Authority ought not to have granted any licence for

running the shop room in question.

I am of the view that, since the petitioner

purchased his plot at a time when the shop room

was already in existence, it is not open to him to

contend that the said shop room was constructed in

violation of the Panchayat Rules.

Rule 31(1)(b) of the West Bengal Gram

Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules,

2004, is reproduced below:

31. Permission for construction of

building for commercial or

institutional purposes.- (1) The Gram

Panchayat shall not accord permission

for erection of a structure or construction

of a building for commercial or

institutional purposes or for establishing

a factory or workshop or warehouse or

godown,-

(a)…..

(b) on a road or an approach passage

having a width measuring less than five

metres.”

In my view, the petitioner consciously

purchased the land in question with full knowledge

of the existence of the shop room in question.

Having done so, the petitioner cannot seek direction

from the Panchayat to demolish or remove the said

shop room.

##PAGE3##

3

Accordingly, WPA 22082 of 2025 is

dismissed.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for

the parties on usual undertakings.

(Kausik Chanda, J.)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top