The Calcutta High Court has strongly criticised the administration for stopping the demolition of an unauthorised construction after the period granted to the occupants for voluntarily removing the structure had expired, observing that the authorities could not have discontinued the process despite an order of the Constitutional Court directing demolition.

"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 self-demolition, had expired," a Division Bench comprising Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee observed.

"We do not appreciate the conduct of the administration," the Bench added.

The Court was hearing an appeal against an order dated August 25, 2026, passed by a Single Bench in WPA 11371 of 2026, which had directed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Canning Sub Division, to implement a demolition order passed under Section 23(5) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973.

The Division Bench noted that the State had informed it that the Block Development Officer, Canning-I Development Block, with police assistance, had commenced the demolition process. However, the appellants assured the authorities that they would voluntarily demolish the unauthorised construction.

The Bench held that once the period granted for self-demolition had expired, the authorities could not have stopped the demolition process.

"Under such circumstances, when there was an order of the Constitutional Court directing demolition of the unauthorized construction, the authorities could not have discontinued the process," the Court said.

The Bench thereafter upheld the direction for demolition, finding that the appellants had failed to substantiate any right over the construction standing on Plot No. 404, J.L. No. 71, Mouza-Taldi, Police Station Canning, South 24 Parganas.

The dispute concerned an unauthorised construction on Plot No. 404. The appellants had relied upon an alleged sanction relating to a commercial construction on Plot No. 403.

Rejecting the reliance, the Court observed, "The dispute is not with regard to the construction over Plot No. 403, but with regard to the unauthorised construction over Plot No. 404."

The Bench noted that pursuant to directions issued in an earlier writ petition, WPA 18303 of 2021, the Taldi Gram Panchayat had conducted an inspection, heard the parties and passed a reasoned order on October 28, 2025.

The Panchayat had found that the construction over Plot No. 404 had been raised without prior sanction from the competent authority and was therefore unauthorised.

The matter was subsequently considered by the Sub-Divisional Officer, who also heard the parties. The officer recorded that despite sufficient opportunity, the private respondents had failed to produce any valid sanction plan or permission in support of the construction.

The Sub-Divisional Officer consequently directed that the unauthorised construction be removed or demolished within 15 days from communication of the order. The appellants were directed to remove the structure voluntarily, failing which the Block Development Officer and Pradhan of Taldi Gram Panchayat were directed to take steps for demolition, with police assistance.

The Division Bench rejected the appellants' contention that the Single Judge had erred in directing implementation of the demolition order without allowing them to file an affidavit-in-opposition. It noted that the appellants had been represented before the Single Judge and that the order did not show that they had sought liberty to file an affidavit-in-opposition.

The Court also held that the appellants had been given adequate opportunities to make representations before both the Gram Panchayat and the Sub-Divisional Officer.

"The unauthorised construction has been inspected and identified," the Bench observed.

As the appellants could not substantiate any right over the construction on Plot No. 404, the Court held that the structure "shall be demolished" in terms of the Sub-Divisional Officer's order.

The appellants had also alleged that the writ petitioners had themselves made an unauthorised construction, but the Court left it open to them to approach the respondent authorities with their grievance.

Case: Pritilata Gharami & Ors. VS Bikash Sardar & Ors.

Case No: MAT 1481 of 2026

Click here to read order