Justice Suvra Ghosh sought details of notices purportedly served on Khan, who is in judicial custody, and asked the West Bengal government to establish how officials had identified the property as belonging to him. The court directed the administration to stop demolition work pending the next hearing.
The judge also sought video footage of the operation and documentary evidence concerning the notices. The interim order followed Khan’s challenge to the district administration’s action against portions of his house in Srirampur, which officials maintain were constructed without the required approval.
During Friday’s hearing, the court questioned why attempts had not been made to serve notice directly on Khan despite the authorities knowing that he was imprisoned. It also raised questions about witnesses to the identification and notification process, placing the administration’s handling of the demolition under judicial scrutiny.
Khan’s counsel, Kishore Dutta, argued that his client had not received the notices and could not have attended administrative hearings while in custody. He maintained that the demolition had proceeded without giving Khan a meaningful opportunity to contest the allegations concerning the building.
The lawyer also said Khan’s son was staying elsewhere because of fear and had not received a notice. He alleged that lawyers representing Khan had faced intimidation in connection with proceedings at the Diamond Harbour court. Those allegations were made on behalf of Khan and have not been established by the High Court.
The state disputed the suggestion that the demolition had been undertaken without notification. Its representatives maintained that several notices had been issued, hearings had been scheduled and the family was aware of the proceedings. The administration contended that Khan had failed to comply with instructions to remove the unauthorised construction.
The government’s position was that the relevant building permissions were absent. The court asked Khan’s side to produce the sanctioned building plan, while the state was required to support its account of the notification process with records. The competing submissions left both the validity of service and the building’s approval status central to the dispute.
The state also indicated that the demolition and the posting of notices had been recorded on video. The court called for that material to be placed before it, providing a means of examining the sequence of events and the steps taken by officials before and during the operation.
District officials began the demolition on Wednesday morning and continued work on Thursday. The operation involved the Falta block administration, police and other government personnel. Officials said the disputed structure exceeded the permitted height and that the necessary sanction had not been obtained from the competent local authority.
The administration maintained that complaints about the construction had prompted an examination of the property. It said notices were subsequently issued and Khan was summoned for hearings, but no appearance was made on his behalf. A further direction required the allegedly unauthorised portions to be removed within seven days.
Officials proceeded with demolition after that deadline passed, maintaining that the action followed the prescribed process. Khan’s challenge, however, focused on whether those steps amounted to effective notice when the person concerned was already in custody and unable to respond through the usual channels.
The proceedings did not determine whether the building was lawful or whether demolition would ultimately be permitted. Friday’s intervention was an interim restraint on further work, leaving the underlying dispute over construction permissions and procedural compliance to be considered when the case returns to court on Monday.
Khan, formerly an influential Trinamool Congress figure in Falta, is facing criminal allegations in separate proceedings. His detention is relevant to the demolition case because it raises the question of how administrative notices should have been communicated to him. The allegations in those separate cases do not establish the legality of the building or the demolition.
Demolition work began at approximately 8.30am on Wednesday, with block development officer Sandip Singh Roy among the officials overseeing the operation. Police personnel were deployed at the site while workers began removing the portions identified by the administration as unauthorised. The premises were located in the Srirampur area of Falta.
