The Sub-Divisional Officer “rightly noted” there was no stay of the earlier order despite an appeal, the Calcutta High Court has said: a Pending Appeal Does Not Automatically Stay a court’s order, and a house owner’s fresh writ petition against a demolition direction in Baruipur stands dismissed.
Kolkata: Protection against demolition could only have come from the pending appeal, and not from a fresh writ petition against the October 13, 2026 order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Baruipur directing the petitioner to demolish his house, the Calcutta High Court has held, adding that the officer was only complying with an earlier order of the High Court which had not been stayed even though an appeal against it was pending [Dulal Chandra Sanfui v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.].
Justice Rishad Medora heard the matter and delivered the judgment on November 9, 2026.
The Court’s reasoning
Finding no illegality or infirmity in the SDO’s order, the Court held:
“The Sub-Divisional Officer, Baruipur rightly noted in his order dated October 13, 2026 that there was no stay of operation of the aforesaid order dated September 23, 2026 despite an appeal having been filed by the petitioner against such order.”
Reiterating that the writ court looks at the decision-making process rather than the merits, the Court said no illegality or impropriety in that process had been shown. It added:
“If at all the petitioner could have been granted any protection, it could only have been by an order passed in the aforesaid appeal, being MAT/1714/2026. However, it does not appear that the petitioner has taken any step in such appeal after the last order dated October 5, 2026 was passed.”
The writ petition was dismissed without costs. The Court noted that since no affidavit-in-opposition had been called for, the allegations in the petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.
How the dispute got here
The litigation dates to 2018, when the private respondent filed a writ petition seeking demolition of a building constructed by the petitioner, alleging it was illegal. A Coordinate Bench disposed of that petition on April 16, 2025 without ordering demolition.
On appeal, a Division Bench on August 25, 2025 directed the SDO, Baruipur to call for the construction records from the Gram Panchayat, hear both sides and act in accordance with law. It recorded its view that the construction was “ex facie illegal” and contrary to the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 and the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, and that the Panchayat Act has no provision for regularising illegal construction.
The SDO then held the construction legal and authorised. That order was quashed by a Coordinate Bench on September 23, 2026, which held the construction illegal and unauthorised and directed the SDO to take steps for demolition within ten days of communication.
The petitioner appealed (MAT/1714/2026). When the appeal came up on October 5, 2026, he sought an adjournment and the matter was directed to be listed after the Puja Vacation. Meanwhile, the SDO heard both sides on October 13, 2026 and, noting that the September 23 order had not been stayed, directed the petitioner to demolish the construction by October 28, 2026.
What each side argued
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the SDO’s order gave rise to a fresh cause of action, that the officer should not have directed demolition while the appeal was pending, and that he had misread the September 23 order. He sought limited protection until the appeal was heard. The respondents opposed the plea and said the impugned order was passed in accordance with law.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling restates a settled principle: filing an appeal does not by itself suspend the operation of the order under challenge. Unless the appellate court grants a stay, the authorities are bound to carry out the order, and an officer who does so cannot be faulted.
It also shuts the door on using a fresh writ petition against a compliance order to obtain protection that should be sought in the pending appeal. Litigants who want interim relief must pursue it in the appeal itself, rather than wait and then challenge the steps taken to implement the order.
Case Title: Dulal Chandra Sanfui v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. [WPA/31374/2026]
Bench: Justice Rishad Medora, Calcutta High Court
Date of Judgment: November 9, 2026
For the Petitioner: Advocates Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Rishabh Ahmad Khan, Badrul Karim and Jamiruddin Sk.
For Respondent No. 9: Advocates Mahim Sasmal and Nilavo Bera
For the State: Additional Government Pleader Ajit Kumar Mishra with Advocates Ranjana Chatterjee and Krishnasan Ghosh
