Calcutta HC extends demolition stay on Abhishek Banerjee's Amtala office till August 6
Synopsis
The Calcutta High Court has kept a lid on demolition of a party office linked to TMC General Secretary Abhishek Banerjee at Amtala, extending the interim stay to 6 August. With three separate applications now to be heard together, the next date could be decisive — and the state's own argument that the wrong plot was cited adds a procedural twist that complicates the case.
Key Takeaways
The Calcutta High Court extended the demolition stay on Abhishek Banerjee 's Amtala party office until 6 August .
The bench of Justice Suvar Ghosh will hear all three consolidated applications on the next date.
Demolition was carried out on 18–19 July on a building registered to Leaps & Bounds Private Limited , linked to Banerjee and his family.
The state government argued the demolition occurred on plot 507 , not plots 509 and 512 cited in the petition, and sought withdrawal of the stay.
Leaps & Bounds' counsel argued demolition proceeded without prior notice, denying the landowner due process.
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday, 28 July extended the interim stay on the demolition of a party office linked to All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) General Secretary Abhishek Banerjee at Amtala in South 24 Parganas district, West Bengal, until 6 August. The order was passed by a single-judge bench of Justice Suvar Ghosh, who will hear the consolidated matter again on the next date and is expected to deliver a final ruling then.
Background: How the Case Reached Court
Demolition activity was carried out at the site on 18 July and the morning of 19 July. The building in question is registered in the name of Leaps & Bounds Private Limited, a corporate entity linked to Abhishek Banerjee — nephew of TMC supremo and former West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee — and other family members.
On 19 July, a Sunday, the matter was placed before a special bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury, who issued an emergency interim stay on further demolition pending a hearing before a regular bench. The case subsequently came up before Justice Ghosh's bench on Tuesday.
What the State Government Argued
Advocate General Surajit Nath Mitra, appearing for the state government, contended that the demolition petition pertains to construction on land plot numbers 509 and 512, whereas the actual demolition was carried out on plot 507. On that basis, he urged the court to withdraw the previous interim stay, arguing it had been obtained on a factually incorrect premise.
Leaps & Bounds' Counter-Argument
Senior counsel Kishor Datta — himself a former Advocate General of West Bengal — argued on behalf of Leaps & Bounds Private Limited that the demolition was executed without serving any prior notice to his client. 'It was demolished without giving any opportunity for my client to present his part of the argument. Even if there was illegal construction, the landowner should have been given time to demolish it first. If he had not demolished it, then the authorities could have taken action. In this case, that did not happen,' Datta said.
Court's Observations and Next Steps
Justice Ghosh noted that three separate applications have been filed in connection with the matter and that they need to be heard together for a holistic adjudication. Accordingly, the hearing was adjourned, the interim stay on demolition was extended until 6 August, and a consolidated hearing of all three applications is scheduled for that date.
The case is being closely watched given Abhishek Banerjee's stature as the second-most powerful figure in the TMC and the broader political sensitivity of demolition actions targeting opposition-linked or ruling-party properties in West Bengal ahead of the state's electoral cycle.
Point of View
Not the plots named in the petition — is a significant procedural stumble that could undermine its case for withdrawing the stay. Courts have consistently held that even illegal constructions require prior notice before municipal demolition; the absence of that notice here gives Leaps & Bounds a credible due-process argument. What makes this politically charged is the identity of the parties: a demolition linked to TMC's second-in-command, carried out by a state government his own party controls, raises questions about internal party dynamics or local administrative overreach that mainstream coverage has largely sidestepped.
NationPress
28 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the Calcutta High Court extend the stay on the Amtala demolition?
The court extended the interim stay until 6 August because three separate applications related to the case need to be heard together before a final order can be passed. Justice Suvar Ghosh adjourned proceedings to consolidate all three applications for a comprehensive hearing.
What is Leaps & Bounds Private Limited and its connection to Abhishek Banerjee?
Leaps & Bounds Private Limited is a corporate entity in whose name the demolished building at Amtala is registered. The company is linked to TMC General Secretary Abhishek Banerjee and other members of his family, including his aunt, former West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.
What is the state government's argument for withdrawing the stay?
Advocate General Surajit Nath Mitra argued that the demolition petition covers land plots 509 and 512, but the actual demolition was carried out on plot 507. He contended that since no demolition occurred on the plots named in the petition, the interim stay should be lifted.
What due-process argument did Leaps & Bounds raise in court?
Senior counsel Kishor Datta argued that the demolition was conducted without serving prior notice to Leaps & Bounds, denying the company an opportunity to be heard or to voluntarily remove any illegal construction. He maintained that authorities must first allow the landowner to act before taking coercive demolition action.
When will the Calcutta High Court give a final ruling on the Amtala demolition?
The next hearing is scheduled for 6 August, when Justice Suvar Ghosh's bench is expected to hear all three consolidated applications and potentially deliver a final order on whether the demolition stay should be upheld or vacated.
