DULAL CHANDRA SANFUI vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

FORM NO. J (2)



In the High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side

Present:
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RISHAD MEDORA

WPA/31374/2026

DULAL CHANDRA SANFUI
Vs.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.


For the Petitioner : Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Advocate
Mr. Rishabh Ahmad Khan, Advocate
Mr. Badrul Karim, Advocate
Mr. Jamiruddin Sk., Advocate

For the Respondent (9) : Mr. Mahim Sasmal, Advocate
Mr. Nilavo Bera, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, Ld. AGP
Ms. Ranjana Chatterjee, Advocate
Mr. Krishnasan Ghosh, Advocate

Heard on : November 9, 2026.

Judgment On : November 9. 2026.


The Court:
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for,
inter alia, an order quashing or setting aside an order dated
October 13, 2026 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Page 1

(WPA/31374/2026)

Baruipur whereby he was pleased to direct the petitioner to
demolish his house by October 28, 2026.
2. There is a significant amount of history in this matter in terms of
diverse proceedings concerning the subject matter of the
present writ petition.
3. It appears from the records of the case that the private
respondent no. 9 had initially filed WPA/21862/2018 before this
Court praying for, inter alia, a writ of mandamus directing the
concerned respondents therein to demolish a building
constructed by the petitioner on the ground that the same was
illegal.
4. By an order dated April 16, 2025, a Coordinate Bench of this
Court was pleased to dispose of the aforesaid writ petition
without passing any order for demolishing the said building.
5. The private respondent no. 9 preferred an appeal, being
FMA/898/2025, before this Court against the aforesaid order
dated April 16, 2025.
6. By an order dated August 25, 2025, a Division Bench of this
Court was pleased to dispose of the aforesaid appeal by
directing, inter alia, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baruipur to call
for the records of the construction of the aforesaid building
from the concerned Gram Panchayat, conduct a personal
hearing of the petitioner and the private respondent no. 9 and
take immediate steps in accordance with law.
7. It is also recorded in the aforesaid order dated August 25, 2025
that this Court was of the clear and unequivocal view that the
construction made by the petitioner herein is ex facie illegal,
Page 2

(WPA/31374/2026)

contrary to the provisions of both the West Bengal Panchayat
Act, 1973 and the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 in
general. It was further recorded that there are no provisions for
regularization of an illegal construction under the provisions of
the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973.
8. In terms of the aforesaid order dated August 25, 2025, the
learned Sub-Divisional Officer was pleased to pass an order
dated November 11, 2025 holding that the construction of the
said building by the petitioner was legal and authorized.
9. This order was assailed by the private respondent no. 9 by
filing WPA/7518/2026 before this Court. By an order dated
September 23, 2026 in the aforesaid writ petition, the aforesaid
order dated September 25, 2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Baruipur was quashed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court and it was held that the construction raised by the
petitioner herein is illegal/unauthorized. The Sub-Divisional
Officer, Baruipur was directed to take necessary steps for
demolition of the said construction in accordance with law
within 10 days from the date of communication of the said
order.
10. The petitioner herein assailed the aforesaid order dated
September 23, 2026 by filing MAT/1714/2026 before this Court.
When the aforesaid appeal was taken up for hearing on
October 5, 2026 before a Division Bench of this Court, the
petitioner prayed for an adjournment and accordingly, the
matter was directed to appear in the list after the Puja Vacation.
Page 3

(WPA/31374/2026)

11. In the meanwhile, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baruipur issued a
notice dated October 8, 2026 and requested the petitioner as
well as the private respondent no. 9 to attend a hearing before
him on October 13, 2026 in connection with the aforesaid order
dated September 23, 2026 passed in WPA/7518/2026.
12. Thereafter, by an order dated October 13, 2026, the learned
Sub-Divisional Officer, Baruipur directed the petitioner to
demolish his illegal construction by October 28, 2026 after
taking note of the fact that no stay order had been passed in
respect of the aforesaid order dated September 23, 2026
passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPA/7518/2026.
13. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated October 13,
2026, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing
the same.
14. Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits that
passing of the aforesaid order dated October 13, 2026 has
given rise to a fresh cause of action to the petitioner. He
submits that the petitioner's appeal against the aforesaid order
dated September 23, 2026 is still pending adjudication before
this Court. He submits that in view of the pendency of the
aforesaid appeal, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baruipur ought not
to have directed the petitioner to demolish his building by
October 28, 2026. He also submits that the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Baruipur has misinterpreted and/or misunderstood the
aforesaid order dated September 23, 2026. Learned Advocate
representing the petitioner concludes his submissions by
submitting that the petitioner should be given some limited
Page 4

(WPA/31374/2026)

protection by this Court in the present writ petition until his
appeal is heard.
15. Learned Advocates representing the respondents strongly
oppose the submissions and prayers of the petitioner, and
submit that the order impugned in the present writ petition has
been passed in accordance with law.
16. I have considered the materials on record as well as the
submissions made by the learned Advocates representing the
respective parties.
17. In my view, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated
October 13, 2026 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Baruipur. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Baruipur was merely
taking steps pursuant to and/or in compliance with the order
dated September 23, 2026 passed by this Court in
WPA/7518/2026.
18. 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.
19. There does not appear to be any wrongdoing by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Baruipur by passing the aforesaid order
dated October 13, 2026. There is no infirmity in the process and
procedure adopted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baruipur. The
Sub-Divisional Officer, Baruipur was merely complying with the
directions issued by this Court.
20. The writ court is generally not concerned with the merits of a
decision but with the decision-making process. In the present
Page 5

(WPA/31374/2026)

case, no illegality or impropriety in the decision-making
process has been demonstrated by the petitioner.
21. If at all the petitioner could have been granted any protection,
it could only have been by an order passed in the aforesaid
appeal, being MAT/1714/2026. However, it does not appear
that the petitioner has taken any step in such appeal after the
last order dated October 5, 2026 was passed.
22. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed . There will be
no order as to costs.
23. Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the
allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have
been admitted by the respondents.
24. All parties shall act on the basis of a server copy of this order
duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
25. Urgent Photostat Certified Copy of this order, if applied for, be
given to the parties upon compliance with the requisite
formalities.

(RISHAD MEDORA, J.)




Page 6