Calcutta High Court Orders Demolition of ‘Aqua Golf Villa’ Project, Holds Construction Illegal and Unauthorised Justice Suvra Ghosh while hearing a writ petition filed by Ashley Brian Hyams, a retired ship-captain who had booked a villa in the project developed by M/s Greentech IT City Pvt. Ltd. The case raises serious questions regarding approvals for construction, regulatory compliance, authenticity of documents and the legal consequences of developing a real estate project without the necessary statutory permissions.
The dispute began with the petitioner’s booking of Villa No. AGV-19 in the Aqua Golf Villa project in 2014. According to Hyams, the villa was offered for a consideration of approximately Rs. 1.5 crore, and he paid more than Rs. 78 lakh to the developer towards the purchase. The developer had reportedly promised to hand over possession of the villa by November 2016. However, despite the expiry of the promised deadline, possession was not delivered to the petitioner. The prolonged failure to receive possession ultimately led him to investigate the legal and regulatory status of the project.
Instead of limiting his grievance to the delay in possession, the petitioner began seeking information about the approvals and permissions obtained by the developer. He filed applications under the Right to Information framework to ascertain whether the necessary statutory authorities had sanctioned the construction. The information obtained through these RTI applications allegedly revealed that the project had not received the required sanction from the Chandpur Gram Panchayat, the Rajarhat Panchayat Samiti or the Zilla Parishad, North 24 Parganas. The petitioner also brought to the Court’s attention that the project was not registered with the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority, commonly referred to as WBRERA.
The absence of necessary approvals became a central issue before the High Court. Construction of a real estate project cannot ordinarily be undertaken merely on the basis of private arrangements between a developer and prospective purchasers. Depending on the nature and location of the project, various statutory permissions, building sanctions and regulatory compliances are required before construction can lawfully proceed. The petitioner’s case was that Aqua Golf Villa lacked the necessary permissions from the relevant local authorities. If established, such a deficiency would mean that the construction was not simply delayed or irregular but fundamentally unauthorised.
The petitioner’s allegations were further supported by an enquiry conducted by a team constituted by the Block Development Officer of Rajarhat. According to the material placed before the High Court, the enquiry found that M/s Greentech IT City Pvt. Ltd. was unable to produce documents establishing that it had obtained the necessary permission to construct the project. The inability of the developer to produce the requisite approvals was significant because it directly concerned the legal foundation on which the entire project had been developed.
The position taken by the local Gram Panchayat was also relevant. The Pradhan of Chandpur Gram Panchayat reportedly confirmed that no permission had ever been granted for construction of the Aqua Golf Villa project. This confirmation strengthened the petitioner’s contention that the project had proceeded without the approval of the local authority that was expected to exercise regulatory control over such construction. The High Court therefore had before it not merely the petitioner’s personal allegation but material arising from official enquiries and RTI responses.
Another serious issue raised before the Court concerned documents that were allegedly relied upon by the developer in parallel proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal. The petitioner brought to the High Court’s attention documents that purportedly represented sanction plans and completion certificates relating to the project. Such documents, if genuine, could potentially have supported the developer’s claim that the construction had been properly authorised. However, the petitioner contended that subsequent official information established that these documents were not genuine.
The petitioner relied particularly on an RTI response dated June 26, 2025. According to the petitioner, this response demonstrated that the sanction plans and completion certificates relied upon in the NCLT proceedings were not authentic. This allegation significantly increased the seriousness of the dispute because it went beyond the absence of permissions and raised questions concerning the authenticity of documents presented as evidence of statutory approval. The High Court considered the material placed before it while deciding whether the construction could legally continue.
After considering the material available on record, the Calcutta High Court declared the Aqua Golf Villa project to be illegal and unauthorised. The Court consequently directed the Zilla Parishad, North 24 Parganas, to take appropriate steps for the demolition of the project within four weeks. This is a particularly significant direction because demolition is one of the strongest remedies available in cases involving unauthorised construction. The Court’s order indicates that the irregularities identified in relation to the project were sufficiently serious to justify removal of the construction rather than merely requiring the developer to regularise or complete it.
The demolition direction is connected with the statutory framework governing unauthorised construction under Section 23(6) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. The provision provides a legal mechanism concerning action against constructions that have been undertaken contrary to applicable requirements. By directing the Zilla Parishad to take steps for demolition, the High Court has effectively required the competent statutory authority to exercise its legal powers in accordance with the Court’s finding that the project was unauthorised.
The case is also important from the perspective of purchasers who invest substantial amounts in real estate projects on the assumption that developers have secured the necessary statutory approvals. In the present matter, the petitioner had paid more than Rs. 78 lakh towards a villa costing approximately Rs. 1.5 crore. Despite the substantial financial commitment, he did not receive possession by the promised date. His subsequent efforts to verify the regulatory status of the project allegedly revealed that the required permissions had not been obtained. The case therefore demonstrates the potential consequences for purchasers when a project is constructed without proper legal authorisation.
The judgment also illustrates the importance of transparency in real estate transactions. Purchasers are often dependent on developers for information regarding planning permissions, completion certificates, building sanctions and regulatory registrations. If documents presented as evidence of approval are subsequently found to be questionable, purchasers can face significant financial and legal uncertainty. The petitioner’s use of RTI applications to independently verify the status of the project was therefore an important part of the proceedings. The information received from government authorities enabled the petitioner to challenge the legality of the construction before the High Court.
Another important aspect of the case is that the High Court did not treat the matter merely as a private contractual dispute between a purchaser and a developer. The petitioner’s original grievance involved the failure to deliver possession, but the proceedings ultimately brought the legality of the entire project into question. Once the Court was presented with material indicating that the necessary statutory approvals were absent, the issue became one of public law and regulatory compliance. The Court’s intervention consequently extended beyond the petitioner’s individual claim and addressed the legality of the construction itself.
The ruling also reinforces the principle that statutory permissions cannot be treated as a technical formality in the development of real estate projects. Approval requirements exist to ensure that construction complies with applicable planning, environmental, safety and land-use regulations. Local authorities are entrusted with the responsibility of examining whether proposed development satisfies those requirements. When construction proceeds without the necessary approval, the resulting structure may be exposed to enforcement action, including demolition. The Calcutta High Court’s order demonstrates the seriousness with which unauthorised construction can be treated.
At the same time, the detailed judgment has not yet been made available. The report states that the Court has passed the order declaring the project illegal and directing demolition, but that the detailed judgment is awaited. Therefore, the precise reasoning behind every aspect of the Court’s conclusion, including its detailed analysis of the statutory provisions, the documents produced by the parties and the evidentiary value of the RTI material, will become clearer once the full judgment is available.
The case is registered as W.P.A. No. 1047 of 2024 and is titled Ashley Brian Hyams vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. The petitioner was represented by Advocates Jayanta Samanta, Sanway Banerjee and Riddhi Naskar. Justice Suvra Ghosh heard the matter and issued the direction concerning demolition. The four-week period given to the Zilla Parishad places the responsibility on the competent local authority to take appropriate action concerning the project within the specified timeframe.
The High Court’s decision carries wider implications for real estate regulation in West Bengal. Developers are expected to obtain the necessary permissions before undertaking construction and to comply with the applicable regulatory framework. A project cannot acquire legality merely because substantial construction has already been completed or because purchasers have invested money in it. If the underlying statutory approvals are absent, the authorities and courts can still take action against the construction. The case therefore highlights the importance of conducting proper regulatory due diligence before purchasing property in a large development project.
For property buyers, the dispute also serves as a reminder that possession dates and promotional assurances should not be the only considerations before making a substantial investment. Buyers may need to examine whether the project has the necessary approvals and registrations and whether the developer can produce authentic documents establishing its legal status. The Aqua Golf Villa case shows how a purchaser who initially approached the authorities because of delayed possession ultimately discovered a much more fundamental issue concerning the legality of the entire project.
In conclusion, the Calcutta High Court has taken a firm position against the alleged unauthorised construction of the Aqua Golf Villa project at Rajarhat. The Court, after considering material including RTI responses, an official enquiry and the position of the local Gram Panchayat, declared the project illegal and unauthorised and directed the North 24 Parganas Zilla Parishad to initiate steps for demolition within four weeks. The matter originated from a purchaser’s failure to obtain possession despite paying more than Rs. 78 lakh, but it ultimately exposed questions concerning the absence of statutory approvals and the authenticity of documents allegedly relied upon by the developer. The case underscores the importance of regulatory compliance in real estate development and demonstrates that unauthorised construction can attract serious judicial consequences, including demolition. The detailed judgment is awaited and is expected to provide further insight into the Court’s reasoning and the legal implications of the order.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.