Judgment PRATAP KUMAR RAY, J. (1) IN view of very nature of stay application, we are of the view appeal and application both to be heard. All formalities of appeal stand dispensed with as all parties are appearing. (2) CHALLENGING the judgment and order dated 30th November, 2007 passed in W.P. No. 23420 (W) of 2007 by the learned trial Judge, this appeal has been preferred. By the impugned judgment under appeal the learned trial Judge dismissed the writ application, which arose out of challenge of the decision taken by the Pradhan, Shirakole Gram Panchayat on 23rd May, 2007 directing demolition of building and other structures on the concerned plots, which as per views expressed by the said Pradhan was unauthorized construction without any sanctioned plan. In the impugned decision, which was the subject matter of the writ application, Pradhan has proceeded with the matter in terms, of section 23 (6) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 as per order of the High Court dated 6th December, 2006 passed in W. P. No. 17924 (W) of 2006, which was moved by the private respondent of this appeal, writ petitioner seeking an order directing the concerned Pradhan to decide the grievance as raised on issue of illegal construction of boundary wall in terms of annexure p-1 of the writ application. The first order passed by the Honble High Court on 6th December, 2006 in W. P. No. 17924 (W) of 2006 reads such: "in this writ petition the petitioner has made a complaint against the inaction on the part of the Prodhan of Sirakol Gram Panchayat, Dist-24 Parganas (South), as the said respondent in spite of receiving a complaint from the petitioner regarding some unauthorized constructions allegedly made by the private respondent on the joint property lying at Dag Nos. 1943 and 1944 under Khatian No. 599 at Mouja-Sirakol, as back as on 31st May, 2006, has not considered the petitioners grievance as contained in his complaint being annexure P-1 to this writ petition at page 21 till date. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of direction upon the Prodhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat to consider the petitioners grievance contained in the petitioners complaint being annexure P-1 to this writ petition and to dispose of the same in accordance with law at an early date. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of direction upon the Prodhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat to consider the petitioners grievance contained in the petitioners complaint being annexure P-1 to this writ petition and to dispose of the same in accordance with law at an early date. After hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner and after considering the materials on record this Court feels that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this application pending before this Court any more. In spite of service none appears on behalf of the respondents to oppose the petitioners prayer at the time when this application is taken up for hearing today. Under such circumstances, this Court disposes of this writ petition by directing the Prodhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat to consider the grievance of the petitioner as contained in his complaint being annexure P-1 to this writ petition at page 21 and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the private respondent No. 6 positively within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. The concerned authority is also directed to communicate its decision to the petitioner as well as the private respondent within one week from the date of taking such decision. Needless to mention here that in the event any unauthorized construction is detected in the site, the concerned authority will take immediate steps for removal of such unauthorized construction in terms of provision contained in section 23 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. The writ is, thus, disposed of. . . . . . " (3) THE annexure p-1, which was directed to be considered and disposed of by the writ petitioner, Nityapada Naskar in the said writ application reads such: to Date: 30. 5. 2006 the Prodhan sirakol Gram Panchayat P. O.- Sirakol dist.- South 24-Parganas. Sir, the undersigned is the co-owner of the property situated on Dag No. 1943, 1944 Kh. No. 599 measuring 4 Dec of Mouja Sirakol J. L. No. 4 Dist. 24-Parganas South. 5. 2006 the Prodhan sirakol Gram Panchayat P. O.- Sirakol dist.- South 24-Parganas. Sir, the undersigned is the co-owner of the property situated on Dag No. 1943, 1944 Kh. No. 599 measuring 4 Dec of Mouja Sirakol J. L. No. 4 Dist. 24-Parganas South. The Biswajit Naskar son of Late Chatradhar Naskar, Sumati Naskar wife of Late Chatradhar Naskar and Alpana Naskar wife of Manik Chandra Naskar of Village and, P. O. Sirakol have unauthorizedly and illegally constructed house on the aforesaid dag and have raised wall preventing the undersigned to get entry in the ejmali Tank on Dag No. 1942. Such construction as made on 23.4.2006, without any place being sanctioned for Panchayat Authority and or without any permission from Panchayat Authority as per law. So you are requested to take appropriate steps for demolishing the said unauthorized construction boundary fall forthwith. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Nityapada Naskar. . . . " (4) THE learned Advocate for the private respondent before us has submitted a resolution dated 16th November, 2007 as taken by the concerned Gram Panchayat, a copy of which be kept with the record, wherefrom it appears that the resolution was taken by 11 members present out of 20 members directing the concerned Pradhan to demolish the building of the present appellant on taking police help. It further appears that such decision was taken on the basis of the direction of the High Court passed in W.P. No. 17924 (W) of 2006. On a reading, the order passed by the writ Court on 6th December, 2006, it appears that on 6th December, 2006 the Court directed to decide the grievance as raised in the annexure P-1 of the writ application. In the annexure p-1, which has already quoted the private respondent herein as writ petitioner raised a grievance about the construction of the boundary wall unauthorizedly as well as illegal construction of the house without sanctioned plan. From section 23 (6) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 it appears that the concerned authority may pass necessary order of demolition of the building upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the owner of the building. From section 23 (6) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 it appears that the concerned authority may pass necessary order of demolition of the building upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the owner of the building. Section 23 (6) reads such : "23 (6)-Where [any new structure or new building of any addition to any structure or building is being or has been erected or made, as the case maybe] in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1), the authority may after giving the owner of such building an opportunity of being heard, make an order directing the demolition of the building by the owner within such period as may be specified in the order and in default the authority may itself effect the demolition and recover the cost thereof from the owner as a public demand. " (5) SECTION 23 (1) of the said Act provides that no person should construct any building or structure without previous permission in writing of the Gram Panchayat. Clause (2) of the said section provides submission of application seeking permission with prescribed fees. Chapter IV of the West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 2004 provides control of building operation by prescribing procedural law so far as filing of the application seeking permission, payment of fees and other particulars. Under Rule 27 of the said Rule it appears that the Pradhan or Upa-Pradhan or any authorized member of the Gram Panchayat only has been empowered to examine the right, title and interest of the applicant in respect of land on which proposed structure should be made and also the building plan and thereafter it requires to be placed to the Gram Panchayat within prescribed period as mentioned thereto and the Gram Panchayat is the authority to grant permission by sanctioning the building plan or to refuse the same. Rule 27 (1) reads such: "27 (1): - On representation of an application under sub-rule (1) of rule 17, the Pradhan or the Upa-Pradhan or any other member authorized by the Gram Panchayat in this behalf, shall examine the right, title and interest of the applicant in respect of the land on which the structure or the building is proposed to be erected along with the building plan and the site plan, and, after such enquiry as may be considered necessary, shall within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the application, place it before the Gram Panchayat for granting or, as the case may be, refusing permission for the erection or construction applied for. " (6) HENCE, on a reading of sections 23 (1), (2) and (3) read with Rule 27 aforesaid it appears that the Gram Panchayat is the authority to accord necessary permission to construct a building in an area falling within the concerned Gram Panchayat. Section 4 of the said Act has stipulated the Constitution of Gram Panchayat by two types of members - (1) members elected under sub-section (2) and (2) members of Panchayat Samity except the Savapati or Sahakari Savapati elected thereto from the Constituency comprising any part of the Gram. Section 23 (6) has stipulated that the concerned authority would be empowered to give any direction of demolition on hearing the owner of the building. Here the authority means as per the said section 23 is the Gram Panchayat. Hence, any order of demolition of any building or structure could be passed by Gram Panchayat itself by convening a meeting and by hearing the owner of the building. In view of such statutory provision it appears that the Pradhan under any circumstances is not legally entitled to pass any decision of demolition of any building/structure save and except to inspect and verify the right, title and interest of the owner of land who has applied for permission to construct and the building plan in terms of Rule 27 as already quoted and thereby to refer the same to the Gram Panchayat for their necessary action in the matter of sanction of the building plan or the permission as the case may be. Hence, the impugned decision dated 23rd May, 2007, which became the subject matter of challenge in the writ application, in our view, cannot be given effect to as it was passed by a person that is the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat who was not statutorily empowered to pass any decision with regard to the demolition of any structure/building as the power has been vested to the Gram Panchayat constituting with so many members in terms of section 4 of the said Act. By the said order dated 6th December, 2006 passed in the writ application W. P. No. 17924 (W) of 2006 though the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat was directed to consider the grievance of the writ petitioner therein as raises, which is annexed at annexure p-1 of the writ application, but the same for all purposes was an order of the High Court in terms of Rule 27 directing the Pradhan to decide the right, title and interest of the owner of the land, as well as to make an enquiry as to whether there was any sanctioned building plan or not. But the Pradhan was never directed to take a decision of demolition as it was not possible to be taken by the Pradhan since statute has never empowered to do such. Hence, the order of demolition, if any, which was directed to be considered by passing a decision in the said order dated 6th December, 2006 by the learned trial Judge in W. P. No. 17924 (W) of 2006 practically was an order to the concerned authority as it appears from the order itself by identifying the authority under section 23 of the Panchayat Act. Under section 23 of the said Act, Clause (6) thereof has prescribed the procedure for demolition by the concerned authority. (7) HAVING regard to such, the order of demolition as impugned since was passed by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat who was not statutorily empowered to take such a decision and also was not empowered by the order of the High Court dated 6th December, 2006, cannot be legally sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned judgment under appeal as passed by the learned trial Judge in the present writ application against which this appeal has been filed by the appellant as based on the decision of concerned Pradhan dated 23rd May, 2007 is also not legally sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned judgment under appeal as passed by the learned trial Judge in the present writ application against which this appeal has been filed by the appellant as based on the decision of concerned Pradhan dated 23rd May, 2007 is also not legally sustainable. However, learned Advocate for the private respondent submits that a resolution was taken on 16th November, 2007 by the Gram Panchayat in terms of section 23 (6) of the said Act directing demolition of building of the present appellant and the decision of the Pradhan prior to thereof to be considered as simply a recommendation and accordingly there was no illegality committed by the Pradhan to take such a decision and the judgment under appeal is justified. On a careful reading of the resolution dated 16th November, 2007, as produced it appears that there was no whisper that the statutory conditions to pass an order of demolition in terms of section 23 (6) of the said Act has been followed, which mandates that opportunities of hearing should be given to the owner of the building. The appellant was not heard by the Gram Panchayat. As a result thereof, the resolution dated 16th November, 2007, which even if is considered as a final decision in accordance with law on the basis of the recommendation of the Pradhan is not legally sustainable for statutory breach of non-providing any opportunity of hearing. (8) THE word "opportunity of being heard" as appearing in section 23 (6) of the said Act before passing any order of demolition of any structure/building has a great significance. The word "opportunity of being heard does not simply address the point that person should be noticed as to why the building shall not be demolished and on his appearance by oral submission the issue to be decided. As it is a question of demolition of any building/ structure, which otherwise is the property in the hands of the owner concerned and since the property is now within the domain of human right concept in terms of the decision of the European Courts of Human Rights, which has been accepted by the Apex Court also by considering the right to property as within the domain of human right concept in terms of the views expressed in the case P. T. Munichikkanna Reddy and Ors. v. Revamma and Ors. v. Revamma and Ors. , reported in (2007) 6 SCC 59 , on referring and relying upon the decision of the European Court of Human Right, wherein a question cropped up about the justification of law on adverse possession in the angle of human right concept, which was answered by holding that law on adverse possession was bad as it has breached the human right concept, wherein right to property is also included. The Apex Court accordingly discussed the issue in this way "the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right but also a Human Right. Human Right has been historically considered in the realm of an individual right, namely, right to livelihood, right to shelter and/or employment etc. But Human Right is gaining a multifaceted dimension, therefore, even claim of adverse possession has to be read in that context. With the expanding Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Right, the Court has taken an unkind view to the concept of adverse possession. Therefore, it will have to be kept in mind by the Courts around the World that they are now taking an unkind view towards statute of limitation overriding property rights". (9) BESIDES such when a construction and/or building is liable to be demolished, it requires an adjudication by identifying the specific breach as caused, namely, whether the building regulation was breached, or non-sanctioning of any plan was a breach and other factors, namely, the deeming clause of sanctioning of the building plans, the silence of the civic authorities by not taking steps for demolition of the building though it was constructed long 10/15 years back and its effect thereof. (10) SECTION 23 sub-section (6) as already quoted above mandates that after giving an "opportunity being heard" to the owner of such building an order directing demolition of the building could be passed by the concerned Authority, which in the instant case, a Gram Panchayat. As already discussed that the property right is the constitutional right as well as it is within the domain of Human Rights concept, as such, when any persons right of enjoyment to the property is required to be restrained it requires a strict adherence to the statutory provision in terms of section 23 (6). As already discussed that the property right is the constitutional right as well as it is within the domain of Human Rights concept, as such, when any persons right of enjoyment to the property is required to be restrained it requires a strict adherence to the statutory provision in terms of section 23 (6). The "opportunity of being heard" is another facet of natural justice principle, which under the Administrative Law is popularly known as "audi Alteram Partem" principle. It is settled legal position of law that natural justice principle is required to be followed in every action of the administrative bodies as well as quasi judicial body when a party will suffer from civil consequences. To quote from the Halsburys Law of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 1 would profitable to understand the purpose and effect of word "opportunity of being heard" as mentioned in section 23 (6), which reads as follows: "74. Audi alteram partem. The rule that no man shall be condemned unless he has been given prior notice of the allegations against him and a fair opportunity to be heard is a cardinal principle of justice. This rule has been refined and adapted to govern the proceedings of bodies other than judicial tribunals; and a duty to act judicially in conformity with the rule has been imposed by the common law on administrative bodies not required by statute or contract to conduct themselves in a manner analogues to a Court. Moreover, even in the absence of any charge, the severity of the impact of a discretionary decision on the interests of an individual may suffice in itself to attract an implied duty to comply with this rule. Moreover, even in the absence of any charge, the severity of the impact of a discretionary decision on the interests of an individual may suffice in itself to attract an implied duty to comply with this rule. Although, in general the rule applies only to conduct leading directly to a final act or decision, and not to the making of a preliminary decision or to an investigation designed to obtain information for the purpose of a report or a recommendation on which a subsequent decision may be founded, the nature of an inquiry or a provisional decision may be such as to give rise to a reasonable expectation that persons prejudicially affected shall be afforded an opportunity to put their case at that stage; and it may be unfair not to require the inquiry to be conducted in a judicial spirit if its outcome is likely to expose a person to a legal hazard or other substantial prejudice. As has already been indicated, the circumstances in which the rule will apply cannot be exhaustively defined, but they embrace a wide range of situations in which acts or decisions have civil consequences for individuals by directly affecting their legitimate interests or expectations. As has already been indicated, the circumstances in which the rule will apply cannot be exhaustively defined, but they embrace a wide range of situations in which acts or decisions have civil consequences for individuals by directly affecting their legitimate interests or expectations. " (11) HAVING regard to such serious issue of demolition of any property, namely, the structure and/or building, which is also a property, this Court is of the view that "opportunity of being heard" the words as are appearing in the statute should be followed strictly in the manner, namely, (1) the owner of the land/owner of the building should be served with a proper notice by referring the allegation, if any, against them; (2) if there is no allegation against such construction of the building, then any inspection report, if any, which is the basis of taking any action under section 23 (6) by the appropriate authority; (3) detailing the particulars which should be demolished and the reason why; (4) giving an opportunity to file any objection in respect of any complaint, if any, if the same is the basis of initiation of a proceeding under section 23 (6) of the said Act and/or filing of objection against the inspection report, if any, which may be the basis of action under the said statutory provision; (5) thereafter upon giving a personal hearing and recording the submission as to be made on such basis with proper signatures on such deposition, if any, has to be taken, a decision to be reached by the concerned Gram Panchayat with reason and (6) communication of the same to the affected person, (12) HAVING regard to the aforesaid findings and observations, the resolution dated 16th November, 2007 produced before us as taken by the concerned Gram Panchayat empowering the Pradhan to take steps for demolition on taking police help is not legally sustainable as opportunity of hearing was not given to the owner of the building, the present appellant. As a consequence of our finding above, the impugned decision of the writ application dated 23rd May, 2007 passed by the concerned Pradhan is also not legally sustainable as the Pradhan made a positive finding of demolition, which was beyond his jurisdiction and power vested under the statute. Hence, the same is quashed and set aside. (13) THE impugned judgment under appeal also stands set aside and quashed on the aforesaid reasoning. Hence, the same is quashed and set aside. (13) THE impugned judgment under appeal also stands set aside and quashed on the aforesaid reasoning. (14) THE writ application and appeal both are allowed accordingly. Stay application also stands disposed of. Writ application and appeal allowed.