1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/83/2026 IA No. CAN/1/2026 Smt. Mala Soni Robert Jeeva Raj Vs Shri. Gobinda Mondal and another Mr. KMB Jayapal ... for the appellant Mr. Arul Prasanth … for the respondent No.1 Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondent No. 2 September 02, 2026 [AKB] Item No.6 1. The order dated 4th August, 2026 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in WPA/381/2026 is impugned in the instant appeal which is at the instance of the private respondent in the said writ petition. 2. The Hon’ble Single Judge took note of the fact that copy of the notice of the writ petition was refused to be accepted by the learned advocate representing the private respondent in the writ proceeding. The writ petition was sought to be served upon the private respondent through speed post but the same was refused to be accepted.On the aforesaid facts, the Court opined that service is complete and proceeded to decide the writ petition on merits. 3. In the writ petition, the writ petitioner sought for implementation of the order of demolition which was passed on 11th October, 2023 followed by further order on 03rd October, 2024. The Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the private respondent herein being WPA/476/2024 passed order on 04th 2 October, 2024 directed the authority to proceed for execution of the order of demolition and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.

4. Despite such order being passed, the order of demolition was not executed. A further writ petition being WPA/381/2026 was filed by the private respondent herein. The Court vide order dated 04th August, 2026 directed the authority to demolish the unauthorized construction as expeditiously as possible. The Court took note of the fact that despite an order of demolition being passed way back in October, 2023, the appellant herein constructed an additional unauthorized floor. 5. Learned advocate representing the appellant/person responsible for making the unauthorized construction submits that copy of the writ petition was not served upon his client. A civil suit against the Municipal Council challenging the order of demolition is pending consideration wherein an ad interim order of stay has been passed. It has also been submitted that statutory appeal against the order of demolition is pending consideration before the authority for a considerable period of time. 6. Prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order of passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. 7. Learned advocate representing the respondent No.1/ writ petitioner submits that the Hon’ble Single Judge took note of the earlier order for execution of the order of demolition passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 04th October, 2024 in 3 WPA/476/2024.The said order not being appealed has attained finality and the same is liable to be executed.

8. It has further been submitted that the appellant went on to make additional construction of one more floor even after the order of demolition was passed. 9. The private respondent relies upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 12199-12200/2025 in the matter of Kaniz Ahmed vs Sabuddin & Others, 2025 INSC 610, wherein the Court clearly held that, in the event any violation in construction is brought to the notice of the Court, the same should be dealt with iron hands.Any leniency or mercy shown to the person guilty of unauthorized construction would amount to showing misplaced sympathy. 10. The judgements delivered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 08th April, 2026 in MAT 602 of 2025 with CAN/2/2025 (Surendar Kanu vs. Madan Kanu and others) and on 20th August, 2026 in MAT/82/2026 with CAN/1/2026 (Dr. R. Thulasidasan vs. Shri M.Sethu & others) have been relied upon wherein the Court directed demolition of the unauthorized construction. 11. Prayer has been made to dismiss the appeal. 12. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of all the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the order of demolition which was initially passed on 11th October, 2023 has been duly affirmed by the Court and directed to be executed vide order dated 04th October, 2024 passed in 4 WPA/476/2024. The said order has not been challenged by any party and the same has attained finality.

13. The order impugned dated 04th August, 2026, from where the instant appeal arises, took note of the order passed in the earlier writ petition. The Court also took note of the fact that the Civil Suit that had been filed being Other Suit No. 80 of 2024 challenging the order of demolition is ex facie abuse of the process of law. 14. The submission of the appellant that the statutory appeal has been kept pending by the appellate authority does not help the appellant as the appellant never took any step to pursue the same to its logical conclusion. Had the appellant been genuinely aggrieved by the order of demolition or by the order passed in the earlier writ petition directing execution of the order of demolition, the appellant ought to have approached the judicial forum for a direction upon the authority to decide and dispose of the statutory appeal. 15. The appellant also took the risk of raising further unauthorized construction of one more floor even after order of demolition was passed. The appellant has gone to the extent of raising the unauthorized construction in deviation of the plan sanctioned and also without any sanctioned plan of the top floor. 16. The law relating to unauthorized construction is well settled by now. There is hardly any scope to show any leniency or mercy to the unscrupulous builders who raise unauthorized constructions either in deviation of or without any sanction plan. Slightest mercy shown to such dishonest builders will act 5

as a premium to them to avoid the demolition proceeding. The unauthorized constructions are sold or transferred to unsuspecting buyers creating third party rights and unnecessary litigations. 17. The Court is of the opinion that the order of demolition which was passed way back on 11thOctober 2023 ought to be implemented without any further delay. The PBMC is directed to proceed to execute the order of demolition at the earliest. 18. The Station House Officer, Pahargaon Police Station is directed to render all necessary assistance to the Municipal Council in executing the order of demolition. The Superintendent of Police, South Andaman District shall also ensure and provide all support and assistance to ensure that the order of demolition is strictly implemented. 19. The appellant is restrained from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the demolition of the unauthorized construction that has been detected. 20. The appeal and the connected application stand dismissed. 21. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( Amrita Sinha, J. ) ( Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)

1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/83/2026 IA No. CAN/1/2026 Smt. Mala Soni Robert Jeeva Raj Vs Shri. Gobinda Mondal and another Mr. KMB Jayapal ... for the appellant Mr. Arul Prasanth … for the respondent No.1 Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondent No. 2 September 02, 2026 [AKB] Item No.6 1. The order dated 4th August, 2026 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in WPA/381/2026 is impugned in the instant appeal which is at the instance of the private respondent in the said writ petition. 2. The Hon’ble Single Judge took note of the fact that copy of the notice of the writ petition was refused to be accepted by the learned advocate representing the private respondent in the writ proceeding. The writ petition was sought to be served upon the private respondent through speed post but the same was refused to be accepted.On the aforesaid facts, the Court opined that service is complete and proceeded to decide the writ petition on merits. 3. In the writ petition, the writ petitioner sought for implementation of the order of demolition which was passed on 11th October, 2023 followed by further order on 03rd October, 2024. The Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the private respondent herein being WPA/476/2024 passed order on 04th 2 October, 2024 directed the authority to proceed for execution of the order of demolition and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.

4. Despite such order being passed, the order of demolition was not executed. A further writ petition being WPA/381/2026 was filed by the private respondent herein. The Court vide order dated 04th August, 2026 directed the authority to demolish the unauthorized construction as expeditiously as possible. The Court took note of the fact that despite an order of demolition being passed way back in October, 2023, the appellant herein constructed an additional unauthorized floor. 5. Learned advocate representing the appellant/person responsible for making the unauthorized construction submits that copy of the writ petition was not served upon his client. A civil suit against the Municipal Council challenging the order of demolition is pending consideration wherein an ad interim order of stay has been passed. It has also been submitted that statutory appeal against the order of demolition is pending consideration before the authority for a considerable period of time. 6. Prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order of passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. 7. Learned advocate representing the respondent No.1/ writ petitioner submits that the Hon’ble Single Judge took note of the earlier order for execution of the order of demolition passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 04th October, 2024 in 3 WPA/476/2024.The said order not being appealed has attained finality and the same is liable to be executed.

8. It has further been submitted that the appellant went on to make additional construction of one more floor even after the order of demolition was passed. 9. The private respondent relies upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 12199-12200/2025 in the matter of Kaniz Ahmed vs Sabuddin & Others, 2025 INSC 610, wherein the Court clearly held that, in the event any violation in construction is brought to the notice of the Court, the same should be dealt with iron hands.Any leniency or mercy shown to the person guilty of unauthorized construction would amount to showing misplaced sympathy. 10. The judgements delivered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 08th April, 2026 in MAT 602 of 2025 with CAN/2/2025 (Surendar Kanu vs. Madan Kanu and others) and on 20th August, 2026 in MAT/82/2026 with CAN/1/2026 (Dr. R. Thulasidasan vs. Shri M.Sethu & others) have been relied upon wherein the Court directed demolition of the unauthorized construction. 11. Prayer has been made to dismiss the appeal. 12. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of all the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the order of demolition which was initially passed on 11th October, 2023 has been duly affirmed by the Court and directed to be executed vide order dated 04th October, 2024 passed in 4 WPA/476/2024. The said order has not been challenged by any party and the same has attained finality.

13. The order impugned dated 04th August, 2026, from where the instant appeal arises, took note of the order passed in the earlier writ petition. The Court also took note of the fact that the Civil Suit that had been filed being Other Suit No. 80 of 2024 challenging the order of demolition is ex facie abuse of the process of law. 14. The submission of the appellant that the statutory appeal has been kept pending by the appellate authority does not help the appellant as the appellant never took any step to pursue the same to its logical conclusion. Had the appellant been genuinely aggrieved by the order of demolition or by the order passed in the earlier writ petition directing execution of the order of demolition, the appellant ought to have approached the judicial forum for a direction upon the authority to decide and dispose of the statutory appeal. 15. The appellant also took the risk of raising further unauthorized construction of one more floor even after order of demolition was passed. The appellant has gone to the extent of raising the unauthorized construction in deviation of the plan sanctioned and also without any sanctioned plan of the top floor. 16. The law relating to unauthorized construction is well settled by now. There is hardly any scope to show any leniency or mercy to the unscrupulous builders who raise unauthorized constructions either in deviation of or without any sanction plan. Slightest mercy shown to such dishonest builders will act 5

as a premium to them to avoid the demolition proceeding. The unauthorized constructions are sold or transferred to unsuspecting buyers creating third party rights and unnecessary litigations. 17. The Court is of the opinion that the order of demolition which was passed way back on 11thOctober 2023 ought to be implemented without any further delay. The PBMC is directed to proceed to execute the order of demolition at the earliest. 18. The Station House Officer, Pahargaon Police Station is directed to render all necessary assistance to the Municipal Council in executing the order of demolition. The Superintendent of Police, South Andaman District shall also ensure and provide all support and assistance to ensure that the order of demolition is strictly implemented. 19. The appellant is restrained from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the demolition of the unauthorized construction that has been detected. 20. The appeal and the connected application stand dismissed. 21. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( Amrita Sinha, J. ) ( Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)