Case Title: KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR. Vs. BIMAL KUMAR SHAH & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6466 OF 2024 ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 4504 OF 2021
Order on: MAY 16, 2024
Quorum: J. PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J. ARAVIND KUMAR
Facts:
The case involves a dispute between the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) and Mr. Birinchi Bihari Shah over a property located in Kolkata. Mr. Shah inherited the property from his father when he was a minor, and his elder brother managed it until Mr. Shah came of age. The property was rented out to a company called M/s Arora Film Corporation. All municipal taxes and dues related to the property were regularly paid. In 2009, the KMC attempted to forcefully take over the property, prompting Mr. Shah to file a writ petition in the High Court seeking protection against this action. Since there was no real disagreement over who owned the property, the High Court ordered the KMC to conduct an inquiry into any encroachments on the property and prohibited them from making any new constructions on it.
Issues framed by the Court:
- Whether the KMC has the power of compulsory acquisition of immovable property under Section 352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.
- Whether Section 363 of the KMC Act, providing for compensation when land is acquired under Section 352, is applicable and sufficient.
- Whether the constitutional position regarding the acquisition of immovable property and the requirements for a valid acquisition fall under Article 300A of the Constitution.
- Whether the absence of certain sub-rights or procedures, such as notice, hearing, reasons for decision, etc., in Section 352 renders it invalid for property acquisition.
Legal Provisions:
Section 352 of KMC Act, 1980: Power to acquire lands and buildings for public streets and for public parking places.
Section 363 of KMC Act, 1980: Compensation to be paid by the Corporation.
Article 300A of the Constitution: It deals with Right to Property.
Section 537 of KMC Act, 1980: It states about the procedure when immovable property cannot be acquired by agreement.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC), herein, the appellant in this case, argued that they had the legal right to acquire Mr. Birinchi Bihari Shah’s property under Section 352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. They claimed that this section empowered them to compulsorily acquire immovable property. Moreover, the KMC contended that even if Section 352 did not explicitly provide for compensation, Section 363 of the same Act allowed for compensation to be provided when land is acquired under Section 352. Therefore, they claimed that they had the legal framework in place to acquire the property and compensate the owner. Overall, the KMC’s main contention was that they were acting within their legal rights under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, and that they had the authority to acquire the property in question.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondents, including Mr. Birinchi Bihari Shah, contended that the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) did not possess the legal authority to acquire Mr. Shah’s property under Section 352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. They argued that this section did not confer the KMC with the power to forcibly take over immovable property. Furthermore, the respondents disputed the KMC’s interpretation of Section 363, asserting that it did not adequately address the issue of compensation for property acquisition under Section 352. the respondents’ main contention was that the KMC’s actions were not supported by the law, and they sought to protect their property rights against what they viewed as an unlawful attempt by the KMC to acquire their property.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement:
Based on the analysis made by the hon’ble court, it examined whether the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) holds any legal authority to take over Mr. Birinchi Bihari Shah’s property under Section 352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. However, the court determined that this section didn’t provide KMC the power to acquire property forcefully. Moreover, the court looked at whether Section 363 of the Act, which provides for compensation when land is acquired under Section 352, was applicable. They concluded that even if compensation was provided, it didn’t make the acquisition lawful if the initial power to acquire the property wasn’t valid. By considering the constitutional rights related to property acquisition, they highlighted that there are certain procedures and rights, like notice, hearing, and fair compensation, that must be followed for a valid acquisition. Since Section 352 didn’t include these procedures, the court ruled that it couldn’t be used for property acquisition. Therefore, the court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, stating that the KMC could not acquire Mr. Shah’s property under Section 352. They emphasized the importance of following proper procedures and respecting property rights.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Shramana Sengupta
