The Calcutta High Court on Friday halted the demolition of a house in Srirampur, Falta, linked to Jahangir Khan, until Monday after questioning the South 24 Parganas administration about ownership verification, notice and the procedure followed before the action.
The demolition of the allegedly illegal house began at about 8.30am on Wednesday in the presence of the block development officer, police and fire department personnel. Khan, who is in custody, challenged the action before a single bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh on Friday.
During the hearing, the court asked the state whether a notice had been served on Khan and how the administration had established that the house belonged to him. The judge also questioned why no attempts had allegedly been made to serve notice on a person known to be in custody.
Khan’s lawyer was asked to produce the building’s sanction plan. The counsel told the court that the structure was being demolished without notice and said Khan’s son was staying elsewhere because of fear and had therefore not received any notice. The lawyer also alleged that Khan was being targeted and that lawyers had faced intimidation while attempting to appear for him in Diamond Harbour court.
The court asked the state, “Why were no witnesses kept? Where is the proof that the house belongs to that person?” Justice Ghosh described ownership and service of notice as technical issues but said the circumstances in which notice was served were central to the case.
The administration’s account, as reported in court, is that complaints had been submitted seeking an inquiry into whether the house had been constructed according to rules. Officials reportedly sent Khan several notices and summoned him for hearings, but he did not appear. One notice directed him to demolish the unauthorised portion within seven days. The administration said the demolition proceeded after the order was not complied with.
The conflicting accounts place the case at the intersection of unauthorised construction enforcement and procedural safeguards. While the administration has referred to notices, hearings and an alleged unauthorised portion of the property, the petitioner has disputed whether notice was properly served and challenged the basis for identifying the house as Khan’s.
The court’s intervention temporarily stops further demolition and requires the state to respond to questions about ownership, notice and the presence of witnesses during the action. The matter is scheduled to come up again on Monday.
