Aniruddha Paul Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Aniruddha Paul Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with observations and directions: Maheshtala Municipality directed to inspect the locale and take a reasoned decision; if construction by respondent no.7 is found illegal without sanctioned building plan, steps under Section 218, West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993; proceedings to conclude within eight weeks of initiation and entire process within twelve weeks of communication of the order; urgent certified photostat copy to parties on compliance with formalities.

Issue for consideration

Whether the pucca building constructed by respondent no.7 over the stated premises (municipal holding no. F3-42/21, Ward No. 31, Maheshtala Municipality, South 24 Parganas) was raised illegally without any sanctioned building plan, and what action Maheshtala Municipality must accordingly take.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the disclosure that the municipality had responded that no sanction plan was issued for the holding, it is appropriate to direct the municipal authorities to carry out an inspection of the locale and take a decision, which shall be in the form of a reasoned order.

Key takeaways

If, on the basis of the municipality's reasoned decision, the construction is found to have been carried out illegally without any sanctioned building plan, appropriate steps shall be taken under Section 218 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993.ratio¶20
Timelines fixed: the above proceedings are to be brought to a logical conclusion within eight weeks from initiation, and the entire process must be completed within twelve weeks from communication of this order.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPA 9184 of 2026, Calcutta High Court, decided 05.05.2026, Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) disposed of with directions: following the petitioner's supplementary affidavit disclosing an RTI response that no sanction plan had been issued for municipal holding no. F3-42/21 (R.S. Dag No. 356, L.R. Dag Nos. 356/794 and 356/795, Mouza-Purbangla, Ward No. 31, Maheshtala Municipality, South 24 Parganas), the Court directed the municipal authorities to carry out an inspection and take a decision by way of a reasoned order; if the pucca construction by respondent no.7 is found illegal for want of sanctioned building plan, appropriate steps are to be taken under Section 218 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993; proceedings to conclude within eight weeks of initiation, entire process within twelve weeks of communication of the order; allegations deemed not admitted as no affidavit-in-opposition was called for.

8 05.05.2026 sb Ct.3.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

WPA 9184 of 2026

Aniruddha Paul Versus

State of West Bengal & Ors.

Ms. Pampa Dey (Dhabal)

… For the petitioner.

Mr. R. N. Chakraborty Mr. R. Singh … For Maheshtala Municipality

Mr. Debnarayan Patra

Ms. Arpita Mondal

… For the private respondent.

Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.

Alleging illegal construction at the behest of the respondent no.7 over R.S. Dag No. 356, L.R. Dag No. 356/794 and 356/795, Mouza –Purbangla, J.L. No.49, Block (T.M.), Ward No. 31 under Maheshtala Municipality, municipal holding no.F3-42/21, South 24 Parganas and the failure on the part of the municipality to take appropriate steps on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner, the instant writ petition has been filed.

The learned advocate for the petitioner prays for leave to file a supplementary affidavit to bring on record a response issued by the municipal authorities, subsequent to filing of the writ petition, in connection with the

2

WPA 9184 of 2026

information sought for under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Let such supplementary affidavit be taken on record.

Learned advocate representing the petitioner by relying on the supplementary affidavit would submit that the municipality has already given a response that no sanction plan has been issued in respect of the aforesaid holding no. According to her, notwithstanding the above, a pucca building has been constructed by the respondent no.7.

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I am of the view that in the light of the disclosure made by the petitioner, it shall only be appropriate to direct the municipal authorities to carry out an inspection of the locale and take a decision. If on the basis of the decision to be taken by the municipality which shall be in the form of a reasoned order, it is found that the construction has been carried out illegally without any sanctioned building plan, appropriate steps shall be taken under the provisions of Section 218 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993.

It is expected that the above proceedings shall be brought to a logical conclusion within a period of eight weeks from the date of initiation of such proceedings.

The entire process in this regard must be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order.

3

WPA 9184 of 2026

Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for be given to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)