Calcutta HC Upholds Order To Demolish Man’s Illegal House; His Pending Appeal Had No Stay

In brief

The question

Whether the SDO’s October 13, 2026 order directing demolition was unlawful because the petitioner’s appeal against the order declaring the construction illegal remained pending

The court held

The Court held that the SDO’s October 13, 2026 order disclosed no illegality or infirmity and dismissed the writ petition without costs.

It also directed

It did not grant protection against demolition, leaving the petitioner to seek any such relief in the pending appeal.

Because no affidavit-in-opposition had been called for, the respondents’ non-admission of the writ allegations was recorded.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged the Sub-Divisional Officer’s order dated October 13, 2026, directing him to demolish his construction by October 28, 2026.

¶ 1

The direction followed an earlier order of the High Court, dated September 23, 2026, holding the construction illegal/unauthorized and directing the SDO to take steps for demolition in accordance with law within ten days of communication.

¶ 8–9

The petitioner had appealed that order, but no stay had been granted; the appeal was adjourned on October 5, 2026, and remained pending when the SDO issued the demolition direction.

¶ 10–12

The petitioner then brought this writ petition, arguing that the pending appeal should have prevented the SDO from directing demolition and seeking interim protection until the appeal was heard.

¶ 13–14

02Issues

i.Whether the SDO’s October 13, 2026 order directing demolition was unlawful because the petitioner’s appeal against the order declaring the construction illegal remained pending

¶ 14, 17–19

ii.Whether the petitioner was entitled to protection against demolition in this writ petition while that appeal was pending

¶ 14, 21

03Law Applied

The Court applied the principle that judicial review in writ proceedings generally concerns the legality and propriety of the decision-making process, rather than the merits of the decision itself.

¶ 20

It also proceeded on the basis that filing an appeal does not, without a stay order, suspend the operation of the order under appeal; the authority was therefore required to comply with the High Court’s operative direction.

¶ 17–18

The Court noted that any protection from the demolition direction could be sought in the pending appeal.

¶ 21

The judgment referred to the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 and the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 in recounting the earlier proceedings concerning the construction’s legality, but did not independently apply their provisions to decide this writ petition.

¶ 7–9

04Reasoning

The SDO’s October 13 order implemented the High Court’s September 23 direction to take steps for demolition of the construction already held illegal/unauthorized.

¶ 9, 17

Because the petitioner had obtained no stay of that direction, the SDO was entitled to proceed with compliance notwithstanding the pending appeal.

¶ 18

The petitioner demonstrated no illegality or impropriety in the SDO’s decision-making process, and the Court found no basis for writ intervention.

¶ 19–20

Any interim protection, the Court held, had to be sought in the appeal; the petitioner had taken no further step in that proceeding after its adjournment on October 5, 2026.

¶ 21