Click the Play button to listen to article

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a fresh writ petition filed by a man challenging an order directing him to demolish his allegedly illegal building, observing that the mere pendency of an appeal against the demolition direction does not operate as a stay of the order.

Justice Rishad Medora held that the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Baruipur, had committed no illegality in directing the petitioner to demolish the construction by October 28, 2026, since the earlier High Court order declaring the construction illegal had not been stayed.

"The Sub-Divisional Officer, Baruipur rightly noted in his order dated October 13, 2026 that there was no stay of operation of the aforesaid order dated September 23, 2026 despite an appeal having been filed by the petitioner against such order," the Court observed.

The Court further noted that the petitioner could have obtained protection against demolition only through an appropriate order in his pending appeal, MAT 1714 of 2026. However, he had not taken any steps in the appeal after October 5, 2026.

The petitioner had approached the High Court challenging the SDO's October 13 order directing him to demolish his building by October 28. He contended that since his appeal against the September 23 order directing demolition was pending, the SDO ought not to have proceeded with the demolition process.

He also argued that the SDO had misinterpreted the September 23 order and sought interim protection until his appeal was taken up for hearing.

Opposing the petition, the respondents submitted that the SDO's order had been passed in accordance with law.

Considering the submissions, the Court held that the SDO was merely taking steps to comply with the directions issued by the High Court and that no illegality or procedural impropriety had been demonstrated in the decision-making process.

"The writ court is generally not concerned with the merits of a decision but with the decision-making process. In the present case, no illegality or impropriety in the decision-making process has been demonstrated by the petitioner," the Court observed.

Background

The dispute originated from a 2018 writ petition filed by the private respondent seeking demolition of a building constructed by the petitioner, alleging that it was illegal.

Although the writ petition was disposed of in April 2025 without an order directing demolition, the private respondent challenged the decision in an appeal.

On August 25, 2025, a Division Bench directed the SDO, Baruipur, to examine the construction records, grant a personal hearing to the parties and take steps in accordance with law. The Division Bench also recorded its view that the construction was ex facie illegal and contrary to the provisions of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 and the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. It further observed that the Panchayat Act contained no provision for regularisation of an illegal construction.

Following the directions, the SDO passed an order on November 11, 2025, holding the construction to be legal and authorised.

The private respondent subsequently challenged this decision. On September 23, 2026, the High Court quashed the SDO's order and held the construction to be illegal and unauthorised, directing the SDO to take necessary steps for demolition in accordance with law within 10 days of communication of the order.

The petitioner challenged this decision by filing MAT 1714 of 2026. When the appeal came up on October 5, 2026, the petitioner sought an adjournment, following which the matter was directed to be listed after the Puja Vacation.

In the meantime, the SDO issued a notice for a hearing on October 13 and subsequently directed the petitioner to demolish the construction by October 28, noting that no stay had been granted against the September 23 order.

Dismissing the fresh writ petition, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the SDO's direction.

The Court accordingly dismissed the petition without costs.