The Calcutta High Court has directed government authorities to reconstruct a two-storey commercial building in Purba Medinipur that was unlawfully razed during an anti-encroachment operation, provide the displaced owners with free temporary premises, and pay them Rs 10 lakh in financial compensation.
Justice Partha Sarathi Sen ruled that administrative officials exceeded their legal authority when they demolished the private structure alongside alleged encroachments on adjacent government land. The court instructed the state to complete reconstruction within two years of receiving the judgment and hand over possession to the petitioners, Kabita Manna and her co-petitioner.
Restoration, Housing, and Financial Relief
Under the court order issued on September 8, the state must erect the replacement building in strict accordance with the plan sanctioned by the local gram panchayat, which was submitted with the petitioners’ supplementary affidavit dated March 1.
Because the demolition was carried out without legal sanction, Justice Sen ordered the relevant authority to arrange cost-free alternative accommodation for the petitioners, preferably within the same locality, until the new building is finished and handed over.
The court also mandated a Rs 10 lakh compensation package to be disbursed in two equal instalments. The initial payment of Rs 5 lakh must be remitted by the end of October 2026, followed by the remaining Rs 5 lakh by the end of February 2027.
Origins of the Property Conflict
The dispute originated from an administrative drive to clear alleged encroachments along a Public Works Department road in Purba Medinipur. The petitioners had built a two-storey commercial complex on LR Plot No. 650 pursuant to an approved gram panchayat plan, with the second petitioner conducting a business from the site.
Litigation began in 2024 when a coordinate bench of the high court instructed officials to address any illegal occupancy identified along the road. Following that order, the jurisdictional executive engineer initiated a fresh boundary demarcation.
A local revenue inspector conducted a field survey and submitted findings alongside a sketch map on September 10, 2024. A subsequent inquiry generated an updated report and map on March 17, 2025. Both assessments indicated that the parcels were contiguous and asserted that encroachments extended onto government plots 1 and 12, prompting the executive engineer to order the removal of the unauthorized structures.
Escalation and State Arguments
The petitioners contested the eviction measures and secured an interim stay order in March 2025. The litigation subsequently moved before a division bench, which noted on May 19, 2025, that state officials had dismantled unauthorized construction on public land. However, the petitioners maintained that the clearance operation encroached upon their private holding, and the division bench granted them liberty to challenge the excessive demolition.
Before Justice Sen, state representatives argued that the owners had not produced adequate proof of overreach. Government counsel also contended that the controversy involved disputed factual claims that could not appropriately be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction.
Judicial Determination on Factual Evidence
Addressing the jurisdictional objection, Justice Sen acknowledged that writ courts typically refrain from resolving contested facts because they lack the trial mechanisms required to summon witnesses and record formal testimony. The judge held, however, that a writ court is fully empowered to decide factual disputes when the record and pleadings contain sufficient supporting documentation.
Evaluating the submitted materials, the bench determined that the state operation had not stopped at clearing plots 1 and 12, but had unlawfully destroyed the petitioners’ authorized commercial building on LR Plot No. 650. Finding the evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the administration acted without lawful authority, the court allowed the writ petition and issued its directives for reconstruction, interim shelter, and damages.
