Case at a Glance
Authorities in Purba Medinipur removed encroachments on government road land under the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964. The petitioners said the drive also demolished their sanctioned two-storied commercial building on adjoining private raiyati land, LR Plot No. 650. Relying on the State’s own sketch maps and attendance sheet, Justice Partha Sarathi Sen held that the authorities “exceeded their limit” and directed respondent no. 2 to build a new building per the sanction plan within two years, provide free alternative accommodation in the meantime, and pay Rs 10 lakh compensation in two instalments.
The dispute grew out of a series of writ petitions about alleged encroachment on a PWD road at Mouza Naikuri Jagannathchak and Mouza Maishali, P.S. Tamluk, Purba Medinipur. Following directions of the High Court, the Executive Engineer acted under Section 10(2) of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964, with a demarcation report and sketch map dated 10 September 2024, and later ordered removal of encroachment over LR Plot Nos. 1 and 12, which are government land. In a State appeal (MAT 610 of 2025), the State reported that the unauthorised construction on plot no. 1 had been demolished; the Division Bench gave the petitioners liberty to seek remedies for any excess demolition.
The petitioners, raiyats of LR Plot No. 650, then filed this writ petition. They said they had built a two-storied commercial building with a sanction plan from the Bishnubar-1 Gram Panchayat, where petitioner no. 2 ran a business, and that the demolition went beyond the government plots and razed their building. The State argued that there was no material showing the authorities exceeded the Division Bench’s directions, that the petition raised disputed questions of fact unsuited to writ jurisdiction, and that an independent person could be appointed to verify the allegations.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a writ court award reconstruction and compensation where authorities, while removing encroachments on government land, also demolish a sanctioned building on adjoining private land?
The State’s own records proved the excess
The Court accepted that a writ court should not normally decide disputed facts lacking evidentiary support, but said that where allegations are backed by sufficient evidence it may act, since “a writ Court has to decide a writ petition based on pleadings and evidence, if there be any.” Here the evidence came largely from the authorities themselves: the demarcation report of 10 September 2024, which the respondents did not dispute, and the sketch maps showing LR Plot Nos. 649, 650, 1 and 12 as contiguous, with the encroachment marked only on Plot Nos. 1 and 12.
The State’s report to the Division Bench and the attendance sheet recorded that demolition was carried out in front of the raiyati land of the neighbouring plot. Since Plot No. 650 was not itself adjacent to the government plots, the Court inferred that the “construction of the writ petitioners over LR Plot No.650 has been removed.” Material also showed a sanctioned two-storied building used for business. The Court concluded that “the respondent authorities have exceeded their limit by dismantling and/or demolishing construction” on the petitioners’ land, and that the property was demolished “without any lawful authority.” The judgment does not cite precedents.
What the Court Actually Held
- A writ court can decide a demolition dispute where the allegations are supported by sufficient documentary evidence, including the authorities’ own reports and maps.
- The authorities exceeded their limits by demolishing the petitioners’ sanctioned building on private LR Plot No. 650 while removing encroachment on government Plot Nos. 1 and 12.
- Respondent no. 2 must construct a new building per the sanction plan to the fullest extent within two years of receiving the server copy, hand over possession, and provide free alternative accommodation, preferably in the same locality, until then; the time limits are peremptory.
- Respondent no. 2 must also pay Rs 10,00,000 compensation, half by 31 October 2026 and half by 28 February 2027.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows courts can order restitution, not just money, when the State demolishes private property without authority.
- It treats the State’s own demarcation reports and attendance sheets as key evidence of excess demolition.
- It is a reminder that anti-encroachment drives must stay within the demarcated area.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Property Owners
- Keep sanction plans, title or record-of-rights documents and photographs of your building.
- Obtain the demarcation report, sketch maps and demolition attendance sheet; they can prove what was actually demolished.
- Seek both reconstruction and compensation in writ proceedings for unauthorised demolition.
For Counsel
- Answer the ‘disputed facts’ objection by relying on the State’s own undisputed documents.
- Use liberty reserved in earlier proceedings to bring a fresh claim for excess demolition.
- Ask for interim alternative accommodation alongside restitution and compensation.
Key Takeaways
- Authorities must confine demolition to the area found to be encroached.
- The State’s own records can establish excess demolition.
- Relief can include rebuilding the structure and alternative accommodation, not only money.
- Rs 10 lakh compensation was ordered in addition to reconstruction.
Frequently Asked Questions
What can I do if my house or shop is wrongly demolished in an encroachment drive?
You can file a writ petition in the High Court. In this case the Court, relying on official demarcation records, ordered the authority to rebuild per the sanction plan, provide free alternative accommodation and pay Rs 10 lakh.
Doesn’t a writ court avoid disputed facts?
Normally yes, but the Court held it may decide where allegations are supported by sufficient evidence; here the respondents’ own reports and sketch maps showed the excess.
Who has to pay and rebuild?
The judgment directs respondent no. 2, the authority identified by number in the order. It does not direct recovery from individual officials.
Conclusion
The judgment insists that a lawful drive against encroachment on public land gives no licence to touch adjoining private property. Once the authorities’ own maps showed where government land ended, the demolition beyond it had to be undone.
Practical takeaway: In excess-demolition cases, build the case on the official demarcation and demolition records, and claim restitution, interim accommodation and compensation together.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com