Dismissed¶21

Ramesh Mondal v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC11 Feb 2026WPA/26515/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPA 26515 of 2024; Ramesh Mondal vs The State of West Bengal and Ors.; decided 11.02.2026 by Kausik Chanda, J.; Howrah Zilla Parishad; unauthorized construction; sanctioned plan; land classification conversion from “Bagan” to “Bastu”; encroachment dispute; writ court not appropriate forum; liberty to approach competent Civil Court; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievance regarding encroachment; no substantive relief granted in the writ petition. ¶21

Ramesh Mondal Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner granted liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievance regarding encroachment; no substantive relief granted in the writ petition.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent nos. 8 and 9 undertook unauthorized construction without obtaining a sanctioned plan from the Howrah Zilla Parishad. +2 more

¶14

Court's answer

The relevant plot of land was duly converted from “Bagan” to “Bastu” by the competent authority, as shown by the affidavit filed by respondent no. 8.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The Court found no substance in the allegations made in the present writ petition.

¶14

Key takeaways

The construction in question was carried out after obtaining a sanctioned plan from the Howrah Zilla Parishad, as demonstrated at page 39 of the affidavit filed by respondent nos. 8 and 9.ratio¶18
A report filed by the State indicates that the building was constructed only after the land classification was properly converted from “Bagan” to “Bastu”.ratio¶19
This Court is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate disputes relating to encroachment; the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievance regarding encroachment.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Ramesh Mondal v. The State of West Bengal and Ors., WPA 26515 of 2024 (decided 11.02.2026, Kausik Chanda, J.). The petitioner alleged that respondent nos. 8 and 9 had undertaken unauthorized construction without obtaining a sanctioned plan from the Howrah Zilla Parishad and that the land classification had not been converted from “Bagan” to “Bastu”. Relying on the affidavit of respondent no. 8, the affidavit of respondent nos. 8 and 9 (page 39), and a report filed by the State, the Court found that the land had been duly converted from “Bagan” to “Bastu” by the competent authority and that the construction was carried out after obtaining a sanctioned plan. Holding that the writ court is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate disputes relating to encroachment, the Court dismissed the writ petition and granted the petitioner liberty to approach the competent Civil Court.

¶1

11.02.2026

¶2

Item No.04. Ct. No.15 Suman

¶3

WPA 26515 of 2024

¶4

Ramesh Mondal

¶5

-Vs-

¶6

The State of West Bengal and Ors.

¶7

Mr. A. Bhattacharya Ms. Lucky Patra Mr. A. Mitra

¶8

..for the petitioner

¶9

Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhilash Chatterjee Ms. N. Parveen

¶10

..for private respondent nos. 8 and 9.

¶11

Mr. Vimal Kumar Shahi Ms. Susmita Chatterjee ..for the State

¶12

Mr. Shibojyoti Chakraborti Ms. Riya Ghosh Ms. Debolina Ghosh

¶13

..for Howrah Zilla Parishad

¶14

This Court finds no substance in the allegations made in the present writ petition. The primary contention of the petitioner is that respondent nos. 8 and 9 have undertaken unauthorized construction without obtaining a sanctioned plan from the Howrah Zilla Parishad.

¶15

It is also alleged that the classification of the land was not converted from “Bagan” to “Bastu.”

¶16

The affidavit filed by respondent no. 8 before this Court clearly indicates that the relevant plot of land was duly converted from “Bagan” to “Bastu” by the competent authority. Further, page 39 of the

¶17

¶18

affidavit filed by respondent nos. 8 and 9 demonstrates that the construction in question was carried out after obtaining a sanctioned plan from the Howrah Zilla Parishad.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the construction has resulted in encroachment upon the petitioner’s land. The State has also filed a report, which indicates that the building was constructed only after the land classification was properly converted from “Bagan” to “Bastu.”

¶20

This Court is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate disputes relating to encroachment. The petitioner is, therefore, at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievance regarding encroachment.

¶21

Accordingly, WPA 26515 of 2024 stands dismissed .

¶22

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties.

¶23

(Kausik Chanda , J. )

Ramesh Mondal v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Mondal v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemant Kanoria and Anr. Vs Punjab National Bank

Sunil Kanoria Vs Dbs Bank India Limited

Inrajit Kumar Singh Vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Pulak Ghosh Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Dilip Kumar Konar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Safiuddin Sardar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.