The Calcutta High Court has stopped further demolition of TMC leader Jahangir Khan’s residential house, holding that the State must first substantiate that he was served notice of the demolition hearings while he was in custody.
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court on Friday, November 13, 2026, restrained the authorities from continuing the demolition of the residential house of Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Jahangir Khan until the next date of hearing, directing the State to produce the video recording of the alleged affixation of hearing notices on the property [Jahangir Khan v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.].
Justice Suvra Ghosh passed the interim order in WPA No. 31858 of 2026 and listed the matter for further consideration on November 16, 2026 at 2 PM.
Khan’s case
Senior Advocate Kishore Dutta, for Khan, told the Court that Khan has been in custody since June 8, 2026 and that his wife was later taken into custody as well. He submitted that the house had been vandalised, that documents including the sanctioned building plan had been stolen, and that the property was lying vacant and damaged. No notice of hearing, he argued, was served on Khan at the correctional home, and Khan learnt of the demolition from social media only after it had begun. Khan challenged the Executive Officer’s order directing demolition.
The writ petition also alleges that the action reflects political targeting of members of opposition parties. The State has not accepted that claim, and the Court made no finding on it.
The State’s reply
Advocate General Surojit Nath Mitra said several notices were issued by the Hearing Officer and affixed to the wall of the house, and that the affixation was videographed. He argued that Khan failed to appear before the Hearing Officer or the Executive Officer despite several opportunities, that the Zilla Parishad had confirmed no building plan was sanctioned for the construction, and that Khan had challenged only the Executive Officer’s order and not the hearing itself. A house lying unoccupied, he added, does not mean the family has no control over it, and he sought dismissal of the petition.
What the Court found
The Court noted that notices were issued under Section 160A(6) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, but that Khan was admittedly in custody at the time. It observed that the photographs relied on by the State did not show that the house belonged to Khan, and that no local witness had signed the service report.
“The petitioner was admittedly in custody at the relevant time. No attempt was made to serve notice upon him at the correctional home. Though the authority submits that the authority was ignorant about the said fact, the issue needs to be dealt with at a later stage.”
“This Court is inclined to hold that the State needs to substantiate service of notice of hearing by the Hearing Officer as well as the Executive Officer upon the petitioner before further demolition of the petitioner’s residential house is allowed to continue. The matter needs to be heard at length.”
The directions
The State was directed to produce the videograph of the affixation of notice, and the respondents were restrained from continuing with further demolition till the adjourned date.
Khan faces several criminal cases. Those allegations are untested, the Court expressed no view on them in this order, and he is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Why the order matters
Demolition is irreversible, which is why proper notice and a real chance to be heard are central to any lawful action against a building. The order makes the point that when the owner is known to be in jail, affixing notices at an empty house may not be enough, and the authority must show that service was actually effected.
The Court has not ruled on whether the construction was legal or whether the demolition order is valid. It has only paused further demolition while the State proves service, leaving both sides’ arguments to be tested at the next hearing.
Case Title: Jahangir Khan v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. [WPA No. 31858 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Suvra Ghosh, Calcutta High Court
Date of Order: November 13, 2026
For the Petitioner: Senior Advocate Kishore Dutta with Biswaroop Bhattacharya, Sumitava Chakraborty and Bratati Pramanick
For the State: Advocate General Surojit Nath Mitra with Senior Advocate Nilanjan Bhattacharjya, Jayuita Dhar Chakraborty, Anindya Halder and Joy Ranjan Dhar
For Respondent Nos. 4 and 5: Tapash Kumar Mondal and Partha Sarathi Basu
