Public Asset Sale Under HMC Act 1980 Not Subject to Post-Facto Policy Restrictions: Calcutta High Court - 2026-04-17

Beyond Bureaucracy: Calcutta HC Directs HMC to Complete Long-Pending Land Conveyance

In a significant ruling, the High Court at Calcutta has ordered the Howrah Municipal Corporation (HMC) to finalize the transfer of two plots of land to a successful bidder, effectively ending a delay that began in 2010. Justice Shampa Sarkar emphasized that statutory powers granted to the Corporation cannot be undermined by administrative delays or the retroactive application of new government land policies.

A Decade of Delay

The dispute originated from a 2010 tender process initiated by the HMC to sell two plots (Plot A and B) on G.T. Road (North). Overseas Scrap Trading Corporation, the petitioner, emerged as the highest bidder and promptly deposited the bid amount. Despite the Corporation's own willingness to proceed, the execution of the sale deed was stalled for over a decade due to the lack of approval from the State Government’s Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs. The state contended that the land might be "thika land," raising questions about ownership and the applicability of the 2012 Land Allotment Policy.

Arguments from the Bar

The petitioner argued that their right to purchase the property had fully crystallized following the auction, and the HMC had failed to discharge its statutory duty under Section 223 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. Counsel for the petitioner noted that the tender notice contained no condition subject to government approval.

Conversely, the State respondents sought to justify the inaction citing "inordinate delay," claiming the petition was an attempt to enforce a time-barred claim, and asserting that the land was "thika" in nature. The HMC, while admitting its ownership, maintained that it was awaiting formal approval from the state before finalizing the conveyance.

Defining Statutory Power vs. Administrative Policy

Justice Sarkar’s analysis focused on two primary concerns: the nature of the land and the limits of executive power. Reviewing historical records and the lack of "Form A" submissions, the court determined the land did not constitute "thika land." Furthermore, the court held that in the absence of rules specifically governing the disposal of assets at the time, the Corporation was well within its rights to follow an open tender process.

"The cabinet’s observation which is not on record, and which has not seen the light of the day, cannot curtail the vested right of the petitioner as the successful bidder, to be conveyed the property," the Justice noted.

Key Observations

• On Statutory Authority: "HMC was expressly conferred with statutory power to dispose of the immovable property. In this context, the expression ‘as may be prescribed’ only means that if rules were framed, the powers conferred on the authority had to be exercised in accordance with such rules."
• On Retrospective Policy: "The said policy was notified sometime in December, 2012, i.e. after the auction had taken place. The execution of the Deed of Conveyance was a natural consequence of the tender process. The policy will not be applicable retrospectively."
• On Delay: "This is not a case in which delay is fatal. The delay is not attributable to the petitioner. The petitioner was not sleeping over its right."

The Court’s Verdict

The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the state government to provide the necessary approval within eight weeks. Crucially, the court stipulated that if the state fails to provide such approval within the set timeframe, the HMC is empowered to proceed with the execution of the deed independently. This ruling reinforces the principle that legitimate tender processes conducted by autonomous municipal bodies cannot be held in suspended animation by indefinite administrative hesitation.