SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Cal) 321

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Aniruddha Roy, J.
Amitabha Datta And Another - Appellant
Versus
Kolkata Municipal Corporation And Others - Respondent
WPO 146 of 2019
Decided On : 16-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. A.C. Kar, Advocate, Mr. T.K. Aich, Advocate., for the Appellant; Mr. Alak Kr. Ghosh, Advocate, Ms. M. Nath, Advocate., for the Respondent

The main legal point established is that the Kolkata Municipal Corporation has the obligation to define the external limit of a Bustee and put necessary boundaries, as per the relevant provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act.

Headnote:

Bustee - Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act - Section 2(8), Section 444 - The court addressed the issue of demarcation of 'Bustee' land and the obligation of the corporation to define the external limit of a Bustee. The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act and held that the corporation has the obligation to define the external limit of a Bustee and put necessary boundaries. The court directed the Municipal Commissioner to decide whether the premises in question were Bustee and, if so, to define the external limit and put necessary boundaries.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought demarcation of 'Bustee' land and separate demarcation of private properties. The corporation disputed the obligation to demarcate private property.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the corporation had accepted the property tax on the basis of documents showing the premises as 'Bustee'. It held that the corporation has the obligation to define the external limit of a Bustee and directed the Municipal Commissioner to decide the status of the premises and, if found to be Bustee, to define the external limit and put necessary boundaries. The court rejected the petitioners' claims for demarcation of private properties.

Issues: The main issue was the obligation of the corporation to demarcate 'Bustee' land and private properties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act and held that the corporation has the obligation to define the external limit of a Bustee and put necessary boundaries. It emphasized that the corporation must define the external limit before altering it.

Final Decision: The writ petition was partly allowed, directing the Municipal Commissioner to decide the status of the premises and, if found to be Bustee, to define the external limit and put necessary boundaries. The claims for demarcation of private properties were rejected.

JUDGMENT

Aniruddha Roy, J. - Facts:-

1. Premises Nos. 22, 24, and 26 Nandalal Bose Lane, Kolkata-700003 altogether measuring an area of about 2 bighas 12 cottahs and 1 chittak, originally belonged to Sri. Bata Krishna Pal. By virtue of a decree dated February 18, 1955 passed by this Hon'ble Court in a partition suit the properties had vested in favour of several family decedents of the said Bata Krishna Pal and/or successors in interest.

2. The writ petitioners are the present co-owners of the said premises nos.22, 24 and 26 Nandalal Bose Lane, Kolkata-700003 with the Municipal Assessee Nos. 5007230005, 110072300300 and 110072300324 respectively.

3. Premises No.22 Nandalal Bose Lane, Kolkata-700003 had been declared and earmarked as 'Bustee' land by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (for short, KMC). At all material time the Municipal Rate Cards had been issued describing the said premises as Bustee land, Annexure P-3 to the writ petition.

4. In respect of Premises No.24 Nandalal Bose Lane, Kolkata-700003. The KMC had raised the rate bills and property tax bill for the year 2016-17, Annexure P-4 to the writ petition.

5. In respect of Premises No.26 Nandalal Bose Lane, Kolkata-700003. The KMC had also raised this rate bills for the year 2016-17, Annexure P-5 to the writ petition.

6. The petitioners through its letter dated August 20, 2018 made representation, Annexure P-6 to the writ petition, asking the KMC to segregate all the said three premises individually by specifying their respective areas and to demarcate them accordingly. Since the KMC had failed to do so the petitioners through its advocate's letter dated October 05, 2018 further asked the KMC to demarcate the said three premises.

7. Since the respondent Corporation Authority failed to demarcate the said three premises individually by their respective municipal premises number, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs:-

    'a) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus may be issued commanding the respondent Authorities to indicate the demarcation of the 'Bustee' land, being premises No.22, Nandalal Bose Lane, Kolkata-700003 within the Police Station- Shyampukur;

    b) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus may be used commanding the respondent Authorities to demarcate the area of premises No.24, Nandalal Bose Lane, Kolkata-700003 within the Police Station-Shyampukur on the basis of which the Annual Valuation has been made;

    c) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus may be issued commanding the respondent Authorities to demarcate the area of premises No.26 Nandalal Bose Lane, Kolkata-700003 within the Police Station-Shyampukur;

    d) Mandamus directing the respondents to assess the compensation for vesting payable to your petitioner in terms of Section 449 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980;

    e) Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a) to (c) above;

    f) Ad-interim order directing the respondent Authorities to immediately issue intimation to the petitioners showing the correct area of premises Nos. 22, 24 and 26, Nandalal Bose Lane, Kolkata-700003 within the Police Station- Shyampukur within such time to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;

    g) Costs of and/or incidental charges to this application be paid by the respondents;

    h) Such further or other order or orders be made and/or direction or directions be given as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper'.

    8. Pursuant to the direction made by this Court, the parties had filed and exchanged their respective affidavits.

    9. The parties had also filed their respective written notes.

    Submission:-

    10. Mr. Adhip Chandra Kar, Learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner drew attention of this Court to Annexure P-3 to the writ petition and submitted that, from the said consolidated rate card through which the corporation raised its demand for payment of taxes in respect of premises no.22 was shown to be and classified as Bustee. The assessee number was mentioned as 5007230005.

    11. Referring to Section 2 (

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top