KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR. versus BIMAL KUMAR SHAH & ORS

Citation: [2024] 5 S.C.R. 831 · Decided: 16-05-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 30 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 831 : 2024 INSC 435
Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. 
v. 
Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 6466 of 2024)
16 May 2024
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Aravind Kumar, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
State Municipal Corporation having claimed to have acquired the 
property of respondent-land bearer in exercise of powers u/s.352 
of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the High Court, 
if justified in holding that there was no such power of compulsory 
acquisition of immovable property u/s.352 of the Act.
Headnotes†
Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 – s. 352 – Power to 
acquire lands and buildings for public streets and for public 
parking places – Interpretation of s. 352 – If there is power of 
compulsory acquisition of immovable property u/s. 352 – On 
facts, Kolkata Municipal Corporation claims to have acquired 
the property of respondent-land bearer in exercise of powers 
u/s. 352 – Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court 
concurrently held that there was no such power of compulsory 
acquisition of immovable property u/s. 352 – Interference with:
Held: Not called for – Scheme of the Act makes it clear that s. 352 
empowers the Municipal Commissioner to identify the land required 
for the purpose of opening of public street, square, park, etc. and u/s. 
537, the Municipal Commissioner has to apply to the Government 
to compulsorily acquire the land – Upon such an application, the 
Government may, in its own discretion, order proceedings to be 
taken for acquiring the land – s. 352 is thus, not the power of 
acquisition – It cannot be said that s. 352 enables the Municipal 
Commissioner to acquire land – s. 352 is only intended to enable 
the Municipal Commissioner to decide whether a land is to be 
acquired for public purpose – Power of acquisition is in fact vested 
with the State u/s. 537 and it will exercise it, in its own discretion, 
whenever the Municipal Commissioner makes an application to that 
effect – s. 363 is not a provision for compensation for compulsory 
acquisition – Valid power of acquisition coupled with the provision 
832
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
for fair compensation by itself would not complete and exhaust the 
power and process of acquisition – Prescription of the necessary 
procedures, before depriving a person of his property is an integral 
part of the ‘authority of law’, u/Art. 300A and, s. 352 of the Act 
contemplates no procedure whatsoever – Thus, the exercise of 
the power is illegal, illegitimate and caused great difficulty to the 
respondent-land-bearer – Single Judge held that the appellant-
Corporation acted in blatant violation of statutory provisions – High 
Court justified in rejecting the case of the Corporation acquiring 
land u/s. 352 – Costs quantified at Rs. 5,00,000/- to be paid to the 
respondent no. 1-land bearer. [Paras 22, 23, 32-35]
Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 – Scheme of the Act – 
Explained. [Paras 14-23]
Constitution of India – Art. 300 A – Right to property – Net of 
intersecting rights – Seven sub-rights or procedures to right 
to property:
Held: Under the constitutional scheme, compliance with a fair 
procedure of law before depriving any person of his immovable 
property is well entrenched – Art 300A which declares that “no 
person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law” 
has been characterised both as a constitutional and also a human 
right – Twin conditions of the acquisition being for a public purpose 
and subjecting the divestiture to the payment of compensation 
in lieu of acquisition were mandated – Although not explicitly 
contained in Art 300A, these twin requirements have been read in 
and inferred as necessary conditions for compulsory deprivation 
to afford protection to the individuals who are being divested of 
property – Furthermore, binary reading of the constitutional right 
to property must give way to more meaningful renditions, where 
the larger right to property is seen as comprising intersecting 
sub-rights, each with a distinct character but interconnected to 
constitute the whole – Seven such sub-rights can be identified, 
albeit non-exhaustive – These are, the right to notice; the right 
to be heard; the right to a reasoned decision; the duty to acquire 
only for public purpose; the right of restitution or fair compensation; 
the right to an efficient and expeditious process; and the right of 
conclusion – These seven rig

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.