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
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 (
The court emphasized the binding nature of final decrees in partition cases, confirming that parties must adhere to earlier agreed measurements as set out in site plans, limiting post-decree disputes....
A decision by an authority impugned in a writ petition cannot be sustained if it fails to follow the directions in an earlier writ petition passed by a competent court.
Municipal authority validly approved the redevelopment of historical theatre land for commercial use, asserting no regulatory violation despite resident objections.
The Special Officer lacked jurisdiction to regularize unauthorized construction under the KMC Act, rendering the action null and emphasizing the fundamental nature of jurisdiction in legal proceeding....
Non-compliance with certain instructions regarding demarcation of boundaries, such as recording statements of parties or fixing three Pucca points, will not vitiate the demarcation as a whole.
Municipal authority must act within jurisdiction and statutory mandates during property valuation revisions; arbitrary actions are subject to judicial scrutiny.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.