Shri B N Das v. The Honorable Lieutenant Governor

22.09.2025 In the High Court at Calcutta Ct. No.3 Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Circuit Bench at Port Blair Sl. No.1 akd W. P. A. 452 of 2025 (C. A. N. 1 of 2025) [Shri B. N. Das -Vs- The Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands & Ors.] Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for respondent nos.1 to 3 & 5 [Sri Vijaya Puram Municipal Council] Mr. VD Siva Balan ... for respondent no.4 1.

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition assailing :

(i) the impugned demolition order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the respondent no.3 whereby directions were issued to demolish the alleged unauthorized construction raised by the petitioner over Survey Nos. 58 and 59 measuring an area of 109 sq. mtrs. and 1176 sq. mtrs. situated at Junglighat village, Ward No. 13, Sri Vijaya Puram, without obtaining sanctioned building plan;

(ii) the appellate order bearing Order No. 1139 dated 03.10.2024 passed by the appellate authority, whereby the order of the respondent no.3 was mechanically affirmed;

(iii) the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the respondent no.1 whereby the revisional application filed by the petitioner was dismissed; & (iv) the order No. 3717 dated 16.09.2025 passed by the Secretary, SVPMC, directing the Executive Engineer-II (Wks), Municipal Council, to carry out the demolition of the illegal building from 23.09.2025 onwards till its completion.

2.

It is the case of the petitioner that his deceased mother was the recorded owner of the land as mentioned hereinabove. Upon her demise, the said property devolved upon the petitioner by way of inheritance. The petitioner, vide application dated 01.06.2023, applied for mutation of the said property. The same is still pending before the respondent authority. It is submitted that there existed a RCC building and a semi RCC structure on the said land. In the early part of 2023, the petitioner commenced construction of a new RCC building and raised construction upto the level of casting of the first floor slab. 3.

The respondent no.5, issued Order No. 3279 dated 15.06.2023 directing the petitioner to stop the unauthorized construction and not to proceed any further without obtaining a valid sanctioned building plan. Thereafter, following a hearing, orders dated 02.08.2023 and 13.09.2023 respectively were passed directing the petitioner for demolition of the illegal unauthorized structure. Ultimately, vide Order No. 5305 dated 17.10.2023, a final demolition order was issued in respect of the said premises. Further, a provisional sealing Order No. 233 dated 18.01.2024 was also issued. On 19.02.2024, the petitioner submitted a building plan for sanction. However, the same was returned by letter dated 11.10.2024 passed by the Executive Engineer (Plg.), SVPMC, on the ground that the land has not yet been mutated in the name of the petitioner and the unauthorized construction which has been carried out by him on the aforesaid land is without a sanction plan. Consequently, the demolition proceeding was initiated against the petitioner.

4.

The petitioner challenged the demolition order dated 17.10.2023 by filing an appeal. However, by order dated 03.10.2024, the said appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, by order dated 10.10.2024, the respondent no.3 directed demolition of the unauthorized structure by 25.10.2024. On 18.10.2024, the petitioner was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.3,37,252/- towards the estimated cost of demolition. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revisional application challenging the order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the appellate authority.

5.

Since the respondent authorities were proceeding with the demolition, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WPA 146 of 2025 before the Circuit Bench at Port Blair against the rejection order of the building plan. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 24.03.2025 with an observation that the matter was under consideration before the respondent no.1. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.09.2025, the respondent no.3 directed implementation of the demolition order from 23.09.2025. In view of the same, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mutation application of the petitioner is still pending consideration before the Tehsildar, Port Blair Tehsil. He further submits that the petitioner has constructed the building strictly in accordance with the applicable building norms and there is no violation of the building Rules. He also submits that the said building can be regularized and it is within the compoundable limits. He relies on a judgment of this Court in the case of K. N.

Suresh vs. LT. Governor reported in 2009 (3) WBLR 166, to impress upon the Court that even if there is an illegal and unauthorized construction without a sanctioned building plan, the same can be retained by the Municipal Council by charging compensation fees. It is further submitted that the Andaman & Nicobar Islands (Municipal) Regulations, 1994 and the Port Blair Municipal Council Building Bye-Laws of 1999 empower the municipal authority to accord post-facto sanction in respect of constructions which have already been undertaken. 7.

Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 (Sri Vijaya Puram Municipal Council) submits that the petitioner has carried out unauthorized construction without obtaining the building plan from the Municipal Council. There is no provision for compounding the unauthorized construction raised without a sanctioned building plan. The petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing at every stage before passing of the demolition order. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent-Municipal Council can only regularize minor deviations and cannot compound a completely illegal and unauthorized construction without any sanctioned building plan. 8.

This Court has heard the arguments advanced by the leaned counsel for the respective parties and has perused the materials on record.

9.

A perusal of the impugned demolition order dated 17.10.2023 reveals that the petitioner was carrying on unauthorized construction over the subject land without obtaining any sanctioned building plan. Initially, a work stop notice dated 15.06.2023 was issued, followed by an opportunity

of hearing granted to the petitioner on 21.06.2023. Thereafter, a notice was issued on 02.08.2023 under Section 168(a) of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands (Municipal) Regulations, 1994. A provisional demolition order was passed on 13.09.2023. Since the petitioner failed to remove the unauthorized construction, the respondent-Municipal Council, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 168(a) of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands (Municipal) Regulations, 1994 read with Port Blair Municipal Council Building Bye-Laws of 1999, directed demolition of the unauthorized construction. Consequently, a sealing order was also passed. The statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 03.10.2024. The revisional application was also rejected vide order dated 14.08.2025. Finally, vide order dated 16.09.2025, the demolition work was scheduled from 23.09.2025.

10.

It is evident that the petitioner had undertaken the construction without any sanctioned building plan. Despite issuance of multiple notices, the unauthorized structure remained. The impugned orders were passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at every stage. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that the unauthorized construction has been raised without any sanction plan. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 11.

The Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically, in a plethora of judgments, observed that any unauthorized construction shall be dealt with severely. Since the petitioner has raised construction without any sanctioned building plan, there is no question of

compounding of the said structure. In the present case, the petitioner has not even moved an application for compounding, which could be considered by the respondent-Municipal Council. 12.

In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned order. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any mala fide or procedural impropriety in the decision-making process. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is concerned with the decision making process and not with the merit of the decision itself. Since no infirmity is found in the present impugned order, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

13.

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is dismissed.

14.

In view of dismissal of the present writ petition, the connected application being CAN 1 of 2025 is also disposed of. 15.

Since no affidavits have been filed by the respondents, the allegations made in the writ petition shall not be deemed to have been admitted.

16.

There shall be no order as to costs.

17.

Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking. (Gaurang Kanth, J.)