The Calcutta High Court upheld that constructions made without a sanctioned plan, especially when recognized as such by the concerned authority, must be demolished irrespective of repeated litigation; the precedent affirms and reinforces established municipal law principles and serves as binding authority within West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FMA/1037/2025 of SRIMANTA BODHAK AND ORS Vs AMIYA KUMAR RAKSHIT AND ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCA0271212025 |
| Date of Registration | 17-06-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, HON’BLE JUSTICE APURBA SINHA RAY |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench (Rajasekhar Mantha, J. & Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent in West Bengal; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms order of learned Single Judge; upholds established requirement for sanction plan |
| Type of Law | Municipal / Property / Construction Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether unauthorized constructions without a sanction plan must be demolished despite repeated rounds of litigation. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | None expressly cited |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tribunals dealing with municipal construction law |
| Overrules | None |
| Distinguishes | None explicit, but distinguishes non-representation in previous rounds as immaterial |
| Follows | Established principles regarding requirement of sanctioned plan and authorities’ power |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that repeated litigation does not cure or legalize unauthorized construction lacking a sanctioned plan.
- Affirms that non-representation in earlier writ proceedings does not nullify subsequent enforcement action if opportunity is provided.
- Holds that local authority’s determination about illegality is conclusive where no sanctioned plan exists and previous applications for sanction are on record.
- Reaffirms procedure: authorities can direct demolition if self-demolition notice is ignored.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the undisputed fact that appellants had no sanctioned plan, despite their vendor having sought one in 2001.
- The Howrah Zilla Parishad, authority for the jurisdiction, found the construction ex facie illegal and without sanction.
- Appellants’ arguments that no sanction was required were untenable in light of their own vendor’s conduct and the Parishad’s findings.
- Repeated rounds of litigation, including two earlier writ petitions where appellants were unrepresented, do not affect the procedural or substantive validity of the demolition order, especially as the appellants were represented in the current proceedings.
- The Division Bench found that the single judge’s direction for demolition—issued after procedural opportunity for self-demolition was ignored—was justified, thus dismissal of the appeal was warranted.
- No costs awarded; all parties to act on the server copy of the order.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants)
- Contended that no sanction plan was required for the construction.
- Challenged the order for demolition.
State / Howrah Zilla Parishad / Respondent No.1
- Upheld that the construction was illegal for want of a sanction plan.
- Asserted that the Howrah Zilla Parishad’s finding of illegality was proper.
- Noted appellants ignored self-demolition notice.
Factual Background
- The dispute involved the construction by appellants on property under Howrah Zilla Parishad’s jurisdiction.
- Respondents (writ petitioners) had initiated three rounds of litigation over this construction.
- Appellants were not represented in prior writ petitions but participated in the current one.
- Howrah Zilla Parishad determined the construction was made without a required sanctioned plan.
- Parishad issued notice for self-demolition, which was not complied with, leading to the court-ordered demolition.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment emphasizes the legal necessity of a sanctioned plan for construction as required under the jurisdiction of Howrah Zilla Parishad.
- Authority of local municipal/parishad bodies to enforce demolition of unsanctioned constructions, especially after giving an opportunity for self-demolition, is upheld.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinion; both judges concurred in the final order.
Procedural Innovations
- The court directed that all parties may act on a server copy of the order downloaded from the court’s official website.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms established law regarding sanction plans and the authority of local bodies to demolish illegal constructions.