Back
Civic Body's Endless Wait for Nod Ends: Calcutta HC Forces Sale Deed to Victorious Bidder
In a landmark ruling, the has slammed the brakes on bureaucratic foot-dragging, directing the (HMC) to execute sale deeds for two prime plots to —the highest bidder in a tender—without further ado. Justice Shampa Sarkar ruled that HMC's powers under Section 223 of the Act, 1980, stand unchallenged by any unframed rules or post-hoc state policies. Even as news outlets hailed it as a curb on indefinite delays in municipal sales ( Civic Body Cannot Keep Highest Bidder Waiting Indefinitely ), the verdict clarifies that state approval isn't a statutory straitjacket.
Auction Win Turns into 13-Year Ordeal
The saga traces back to when petitioner entered the plots at Holding No. 432, G.T. Road (North), PS Golabari, Howrah, as a tenant under sub-leases from original lessee Bibhuty Bhusan Lahary, whose 50-year HMC lease expired in . By , HMC—facing expired leases and revenue needs—issued a public tender for Plots A and B (totaling ~45 kathas) on an "as is where is" basis, valuing them at Rs. 4.39 crore. Published in leading dailies like Anandabazar Patrika and Times of India, the auction drew four bidders per plot. The petitioner emerged victorious, depositing ~Rs. 35 lakh as advance.
HMC accepted the bid, but sought state nod post-auction, citing a cabinet note and Land Allotment Policy. Endless queries on title records, thika status, and ownership followed—despite HMC's archives and lease deed affirming its ownership. Representations flew between -, a developer deal collapsed, and the writ landed in . Court-directed surveys confirmed pucca structures, a school, bus stand, and hutments on ~22,260 sq.m., but no clean title fix.
Petitioner's Push: Statutory Right Trumps Red Tape
argued no rules govern sales under Section 223, unlike the repealed —making state approval extraneous. Delay wasn't fatal; continuous talks kept hopes alive, and fits over a time-barred . HMC repeatedly affirmed the bid and chased approvals, with land records (erroneously listing thika pra jas) no bar since records don't confer title.
HMC & State's Shield: Policy, Thika, and Laches
HMC's insisted on policy compliance for public assets, noting title corrections pending and post- cabinet mandates. Incomplete records showed Bibhuti as superior tenant, sub-lessees as . cried inordinate delay ( auction vs. writ), pushing civil suit instead, and flagged thika vesting risks under tenancy laws.
Unpacking the Law: No Rules, No Excuses; Thika Myth Busted
Justice Sarkar dismantled objections methodically. Delay? Ongoing communications showed live process, distinguishing . Tender crystallized rights pre-policy; Section 223 empowers disposal sans prescribed rules ( ). Cabinet whispers can't override statute ( on abiding tenders).
On title, HMC's registered lease to Bibhuti () proved ownership; records merely fiscal, not titular. Thika claims crumbled: No Form A returns post- vesting; Bibhuti's 50-year lease excluded thika status under ( , affirmed ). Pucca structures pre-dated changes; land never vested ( , ).
The policy—post-auction—doesn't retroapply; HMC followed fair tender norms anyway.
Key Observations
"The right of the petitioner emanates from the auction held by HMC, in exercise of power under Section 223 of the Act. The petitioner being the highest bidder had already deposited 10% of the price... This writ proceeding is not in the nature of a suit for specific performance of a contract."
"The is not a . It neither creates title nor does it extinguish title."
"In the absence of the rules, the corporation has to follow a proper procedure for distribution, sale or alienation of public assets i.e. to hold an upon wide circulation of the tender notice and transfer the property to the highest bidder."
"If the Deputy Controller was of the opinion that no determination of Thika Tenancy could be done, the matter ends there."
Green Light for Conveyance: Relief with Teeth
The writ succeeds: State must approve within 8 weeks; HMC executes deeds in 4 more—or proceeds solo if denied. No escalation argument entertained sans proof. This empowers autonomous bodies like HMC against overreach, safeguards bidder rights post-tender, and signals courts won't tolerate "suspended animation" on flimsy grounds. Future sales? Prioritize statute over policy ping-pong, but fix records proactively. A win for commerce amid red tape.
