For demolishing a private building beyond the encroachment area, Calcutta High Court orders State to rebuild it, provide accommodation and pay ₹10 lakh

The petitioners claimed ownership of rayati LR Plot No. 650 at Mouza Naikuri Jagannathchak, Purba Medinipur, over which they had constructed a sanctioned two-storeyed commercial building.

Allegations of encroachment over adjoining government/PWD land led to proceedings under Sections 10(2) and 10(3) of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964, following directions issued in earlier writ proceedings, WPA 11887 of 2024 and WPA 11879 of 2024.

The petitioners challenged the Section 10(3) proceeding in WPA 2538 of 2025, where an interim stay was granted; the State thereafter appealed in MAT 610 of 2025.

The Division Bench recorded that the unauthorized construction on government Plot No. 1 had been demolished but granted the petitioners liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy concerning alleged excess demolition.

The petitioners consequently filed the present writ petition, alleging that the authorities had demolished not only the encroachment on government land but also their building on LR Plot No. 650.

The State disputed the allegation and contended that the matter involved disputed questions of fact.

Whether the respondent authorities exceeded the scope of the authorized eviction operation by demolishing the petitioners’ building situated on rayati LR Plot No. 650, rather than limiting the demolition to encroachments on government/PWD land.

Whether the writ court could adjudicate the alleged disputed questions of fact on the basis of the pleadings and documentary materials placed before it.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to restitution, alternative accommodation, and compensation for the alleged unlawful demolition.

The Court applied Sections 10(2) and 10(3) of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964, which empower the competent authorities to determine and remove encroachments affecting highway/PWD land through the prescribed statutory process.

It reiterated the general principle that a writ court ordinarily does not decide disputed questions of fact because it lacks the machinery for recording oral evidence and undertaking a full evidentiary appreciation; however, the court may adjudicate such disputes where the material pleadings and documentary evidence sufficiently establish the relevant facts.

The Court further applied the public-law principle that State authorities cannot demolish privately owned property without lawful authority and that unlawful State action may attract restitutory and compensatory relief.

The Court compared the Revenue Inspector’s demarcation reports and sketch maps dated 10 September 2024 and 17 March 2025 with the attendance sheet prepared during the eviction operation.

The reports showed that LR Plots Nos. 649, 650, 1 and 12 were contiguous, while the encroachment was marked on government LR Plots Nos. 1 and 12.

The attendance sheet, however, recorded that demolition had been carried out “in front of” the rayati land corresponding to RS Plot No. 613 and LR Plot No. 649.

Reading that statement with the sketch maps, the Court inferred that the demolition extended into the petitioners’ adjoining LR Plot No. 650, which was private rayati land and not government land.

The petitioners also produced materials showing that the demolished structure was a sanctioned two-storeyed building used for commercial purposes.

On this documentary record, the Court held that the authorities had exceeded the limits of the eviction operation and that the alleged factual dispute could be resolved within writ jurisdiction.

The Court held that the respondent authorities had unlawfully dismantled or demolished the petitioners’ construction on LR Plot No. 650.

Respondent No. 2 was directed to construct, at its own cost, a new building for the petitioners in accordance with the sanctioned plan annexed to the supplementary affidavit, within two years from communication of the server copy of the judgment, and thereafter deliver possession to the petitioners.

The time limits were declared mandatory and peremptory.

Pending reconstruction, the authority was directed to provide the petitioners with free alternative accommodation, preferably in the same locality.

In addition, respondent No. 2 was directed to pay the petitioners compensation of ₹10,00,000 in two equal instalments: the first by 31 October 2026 and the second by 28 February 2027.