Pendency of a civil suit does not bar Section 23 inquiry into construction legality.

The petitioners claimed interest in Plot No. 778, Mouza-Parulia, J.L. No. 275, measuring approximately 0.24 acres, on the basis of purchase deeds and Record of Rights entries.

They alleged that the private respondent had erected a pucca structure measuring approximately 0.068 acres on the plot without obtaining the prior written permission required under Section 23(1) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, and complained to the concerned Gram Panchayat of inaction.

The private respondent disputed the petitioners’ claim and relied on a patta, mutation records, payment of revenue and property tax, electricity documents, and an alleged construction sanction.

The competing claims concerning title, possession, the patta and the identity of the land were pending adjudication in Title Suit No. 115 of 2024 before the competent Civil Court at Paschim Medinipur; no injunction was operating over Plot Nos. 778 or 780.

Pursuant to an earlier order, an inspection was conducted on 16 January 2026.

Whether the Gram Panchayat was required to consider the petitioners’ complaint and determine whether the construction warranted action under Section 23(5) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, notwithstanding the pendency of the civil suit?

Whether the statutory authority could determine the parties’ competing title, possession, patta, adverse-possession and proprietary claims in proceedings concerning the legality of the construction?

Whether the Sub-Divisional Officer, upon a statutory reference, was required to examine the existence of prior written permission under Section 23(1) and pass an appropriate order under Section 23(5) after hearing the affected parties?

Section 23(1) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 requires prior written permission of the Gram Panchayat for erecting a new structure or building, or adding to an existing structure, within a Gram Panchayat area.

Section 23(5) prescribes the statutory procedure where construction is alleged to contravene Section 23(1), including reference by the permission-granting authority to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer and an opportunity of hearing to the owner before an order is passed.

The Court applied the principle that statutory regulation of construction is distinct from adjudication of title: ownership does not dispense with the requirement of construction permission, while an authority exercising Section 23 jurisdiction cannot adjudicate the validity of title documents, possession, adverse possession or proprietary entitlement.

The pendency of a civil suit does not, by itself, suspend the statutory authority’s jurisdiction to examine compliance with the construction-control provisions.

The Court declined to determine the parties’ rival title and possession claims because those matters, including the effect of the patta, purchase deeds, revenue records and alleged adverse possession, were pending before the Civil Court and required adjudication on pleadings and evidence.

However, the inspection and field-enquiry materials disclosed circumstances requiring consideration under Section 23, including the recorded status of the petitioners, the private respondent’s absence as a recorded raiyat, and the existence of the pucca structure.

The Court held that the civil suit and the statutory inquiry operated in separate spheres.

Accordingly, the Gram Panchayat was directed to consider the representation and relevant materials and, if the construction warranted action under Section 23(5), to refer the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer.

The Sub-Divisional Officer was directed to hear the parties, examine the alleged sanction and other documents, determine whether prior written permission existed under Section 23(1), and pass only such order as Section 23(5) authorised, without deciding title or possession.

The Gram Panchayat was directed to decide whether a reference under Section 23(5) was required within four weeks of communication of the judgment.

If a reference was made, the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer was directed to issue notice, provide reasonable opportunities of hearing and production of documents to both sides, determine compliance with the prior-permission requirement under Section 23(1), and conclude the proceeding preferably within eight weeks thereafter.

Any demolition or other consequential order was to be passed only by the statutorily competent authority and in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

The Civil Court remained free to decide all issues in Title Suit No. 115 of 2024 independently, and there was no order as to costs.