AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-
Heard the submissions of the Learned Advocates representing the respective parties.
The writ petition relates to Plot No.778, Mouza-Parulia, J.L. No.275, measuring approximately 0.24 acres. The petitioners claim interest in the said plot by virtue of several deeds of purchase and the entries in the Record of Rights. Their grievance concerns a pucca structure covering approximately 0.068 acres of the plot, which, according to the petitioners, the private respondent has raised without obtaining the previous permission required under Section 23 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973.
The petitioners submitted a representation before the concerned Gram Panchayat and sought appropriate action in respect of the said construction. The petitioners contended the Gram Panchayat did not initiate proceedings pursuant to such representation.
The private respondent disputes petitioners' claim. He relies upon a patta granted in favour of his predecessor, subsequent mutation, payment of khajna, property-tax receipts, electricity connection and an alleged sanction for construction. He further asserts that the structure has existed for several decades and that the petitioners have acquired their interest in the property with knowledge of the existing structure.
The rival claims of the parties are also the subject matter of a civil proceeding presently pending before the competent Civil Court at Paschim Medinipur. Title Suit No. 115 of 2024 is pending before the said Court and the private respondent has filed his written statement therein. The materials before this Court further indicate no order of injunction presently operates in respect of Plot No.778 or Plot No.780.
The pendency of the said civil suit marks the permissible limits of adjudication in the present writ proceedings. The validity and effect of the respective deeds, the efficacy of the patta, acquisition of title by prescription, possession, identity and extent of the land and the competing proprietary claims of the parties require determination by the Civil Court upon pleadings and evidence adduced before it.
This Court, therefore, expresses no opinion upon the title or possessory rights asserted by either party. The Civil Court shall determine those questions in accordance with law, upon the evidence adduced before it.
The grievance concerning the construction raises a distinct statutory issue.
Section 23(1) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 requires previous written permission of the Gram Panchayat for erection of a new structure or building, or for an addition to an existing structure or building, within the jurisdiction of a Gram Panchayat, subject to the provisions of the Act and the applicable rules. Section 23(5) of the said Act prescribes the procedure where construction takes place in contravention of sub-section (1). The permission-granting authority is required to refer the matter to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer, who, after giving the owner an opportunity of hearing, may pass the order contemplated by the provision.
The statutory regulation of construction and the adjudication of title operate within separate spheres. Ownership of land does not dispense with the requirement of statutory permission for construction. A proceeding concerning the legality of construction does not confer jurisdiction upon the statutory authority to determine title to the land.
The materials before the Court disclose circumstances requiring consideration under Section 23 of the said Act. Pursuant to the order dated 20th November, 2025, the property was inspected on 16th January, 2026. The compliance report identifies Plot No.778, Mouza-Parulia, J.L. No. 275, as measuring approximately 0.24 acres and classifies the land as “Hatkhola”.
The field enquiry report identifies Manas Kotal, son of Ratan Kotal and others, as the recorded holders of Plot No. 778. The report further states Satyen Manna, the private respondent, does not figure as a raiyat in relation to the said plot. It also notes the existence of a pucca building with a small shop over approximately 0.068 acres and states the private respondent could not produce any document evincing ownership over Plot No.778 at the time of inspection.
Petitioner No.1, the private respondent, the concerned revenue officials and the Special Officer appointed by this Court were present during the inspection. The inspection report, field enquiry report, sketch map and connected land records constitute relevant material for consideration by the statutory authority.
The respondent relies upon a patta, mutation records, revenue and property-tax receipts, electricity documents and an alleged sanction for construction. The effect of those documents upon the proprietary rights of the parties remains a matter for the Civil Court. The alleged sanction, its existence and its legal effect upon the construction may, however, be examined by the authority competent under Section 23 of the said Act.
The jurisdictional distinction is thus clear. The Civil Court determines title to the land; the authority exercising power under Section 23 of the said Act, examines compliance of the construction with the statutory requirements.
The pendency of Title Suit No.115 of 2024 does not, by itself, suspend the statutory jurisdiction to examine the construction. The civil proceeding and the statutory proceeding may continue within the respective fields assigned commensurate to legal provisions.
The statutory authority shall, however, confine its consideration to the construction and the requirements of Section 23 of the said Act. It shall not determine the validity of the respective title documents, the efficacy of the patta, acquisition of title by adverse possession, possession or the proprietary entitlement of either party.
Section 23(5) of the said Act, prescribes the course to be followed where construction is found to have been raised in contravention of Section 23(1) of the said Act. The Gram Panchayat is required to afford statutory reference to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer is thereafter required to accord the owner an opportunity of hearing before passing the order contemplated by the provision.
The statutory procedure shall therefore govern consideration of the petitioners' complaint. This Court shall not itself determine the consequence of the alleged breach or direct demolition without recourse to the procedure prescribed by the Act.
Accordingly, the concerned Gram Panchayat shall consider the petitioners' representation together with the inspection report, field enquiry report, sketch map, Record of Rights and other relevant materials available on record.
If the Gram Panchayat finds the construction requires action under Section 23(5) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, it shall offer the prescribed reference to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer and shall transmit the relevant records with such reference.
Upon receipt of the reference, the Sub-Divisional Officer shall issue notice to the private respondent and shall provide him reasonable opportunity to produce the patta, the alleged sanction for construction, mutation records, revenue receipts, property-tax receipts, electricity documents and such other materials upon which he intends to rely. The petitioners shall likewise have liberty to produce their deeds, Record of Rights, representations, inspection materials and other documents relevant to the statutory inquiry.
The Sub-Divisional Officer shall thereafter determine whether the construction has been erected with the previous written permission required under Section 23(1) of the said Act, having regard to the statutory regime applicable to the construction at the relevant time. If the statutory conditions contemplated under Section 23(5) of the said Act are satisfied, the Sub-Divisional Officer shall pass such order as the provision permits.
Any order concerning demolition shall emanate from the authority vested with such power under the statute and shall follow the hearing prescribed therein. The decision shall address the materials produced by the parties and the statutory requirements applicable to the construction.
The proceedings under Section 23 of the said Act, shall not constitute an adjudication of title. The statutory authority shall not indulge determination concerning the validity of the respective deeds, the efficacy of the patta, adverse possession, possession or the proprietary entitlement of either party.
The pendency of the civil suit shall not constitute a ground for withholding the statutory inquiry. The statutory proceeding shall remain confined to the question of compliance with the provisions governing the construction.
The Civil Court seized of Title Suit No.115 of 2024 shall remain free to determine every issue arising therein upon the pleadings and evidence before it. Nothing contained in this order shall affect such adjudication.
The Gram Panchayat shall take the requisite decision regarding reference, if any, within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. In the event of a reference, the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer shall endeavour to conclude the statutory proceeding within eight weeks thereafter, after affording the parties reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.