2026 Supreme(Cal) 173

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA SARKAR, J. 
Overseas Scrap Trading Corporation – Petitioner
Versus
Howrah Municipal Corporation and Ors. – Respondent 
W.P.A 13525 of 2021 With CAN 1 of 2023
Decided On : 17-04-2026

A local municipal authority possesses independent statutory power to dispose of its immovable property through transparent public auction; such power is not invalidated by a lack of state-prescribed rules, nor can it be thwarted by indefinite delays in administrative approval or unsubstantiated claims of tenancy status.

Headnote:(A) Municipal Law - Power of local authority to dispose of immovable property - Statutory power under the municipal act to sell or dispose of property is not contingent upon the government framing rules unless such procedure is explicitly mandated by statute - Absence of specific rules does not preclude the exercise of statutory power in a fair and transparent manner, provided such disposal occurs through a competitive process. (Paras 18, 19, 37)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Laches and Delay - Inordinate delay cannot be invoked to deny relief where the parties were in constant correspondence and the dispute remained under active consideration by authorities - Principles of equity favor a party that has been persistent in pursuing its legal rights. (Paras 13, 17)

(C) Land Tenancy - Thika Tenancy status - Classification of property - Land occupied by substantial permanent structures under a fixed-term lease preceding the enactment of specific tenancy regulations does not necessarily qualify as regulated tenancy land - Records of Right do not create or extinguish title, and the absence of a municipal entry in such records does not nullify ownership established by registered documentation. (Paras 31, 32, 35)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner participated in a public tender process for the sale of two plots of land initiated by the municipal authority and was declared the highest bidder. After depositing the required advance, the petitioner faced prolonged inaction regarding the execution of the sale deed, with the municipal authority citing a requirement for state-level approval and pending corrections in land records. The case was filed after years of failed representations during which the municipal body continued to seek, but failed to receive, clearance from the state department.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the municipal authority possessed the independent statutory power to dispose of its properties. The delay in execution was largely attributable to administrative indecision and internal correspondence rather than any lack of diligence by the petitioner. The court further held that in the absence of specifically framed statutory rules governing property disposal, the authority remains empowered to act fairly through open competitive mechanisms like public auction.

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition is barred by the doctrine of laches due to the passage of time; (ii) whether the municipal authority requires prior state government approval for the disposal of its property in the absence of framed rules; and (iii) whether the subject land is legally classified as regulated thika tenancy property.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the statutory authority vested in the local body to alienate property is not subject to state-level approval unless a specific rule makes it a condition precedent. Since no such rules were prescribed, the procedure followed by the local body was valid. Furthermore, the land does not meet the legal criteria for thika tenancy due to the permanent nature of the structures and the history of original leasehold rights, rendering the state's objection regarding classification legally unsustainable.

Result: Petition allowed. Directions issued to the state to grant approval within eight weeks and to the local body to execute the conveyance deeds within four weeks thereafter.

Table of Content
1. factual background involving tender process, participant status, and persistent administrative delays. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. parties' contentions regarding statutory power of disposal and applicability of state land policies. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. judicial assessment of delay and findings that systemic administrative correspondence excludes fatal laches. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. statutory authority under section 223 of hmc act prevails over policies introduced post-contract. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. evaluation of land status, specifically rejecting contentions of thika tenancy based on documentary evidence. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
6. statutory powers exist independently of un-framed rules, and defined property rights do not constitute thika tenancies. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
7. direction for specific performance and final mandate for land conveyance. (Para 38 , 39 , 40)

Judgment :

Shampa Sarkar, J.

1. The writ petition has been filed alleging inaction on the part of the Howrah Municipal Corporation (HMC) in executing Deed(s) of Conveyance in favour of the writ petitioner in respect of Plot Nos. A and B at Holding No. 432, G.T. Road (North), Police Station- Golabari, Ward No. 60, Howrah- 711101. Further prayer is for a direction upon the State of West Bengal through, the Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs to issue an approval so that HMC can execute the Registered Deed(s) of Conveyance in favour of the petitioner.

2. Mr. Shaktinath Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that, the HMC issued a tender notice dated November 29, 2010 declaring its intention to sell Plot Nos. A and B at Holding No. 432(North), G.T. Road, Police Station – Golabari, Ward No. 60, Howrah – 711101, on a freehold and “as is where is basis”. The writ petitioner participated in the tender process and submitted its bid. The application money was duly deposited. The petitioner was declared as the highest bidder.

3. According to the case run in the writ petition, the petitioner claimed to have been in possession of the said plots since 1953. One Bibhuty Bhusan Lahary was the original lessee under HMC, who executed deeds of sub-lease in favour of M/s Jay Bharat Iron & Steel Works Limited and Shri. Narsingdas Agarwalla for an area totalling to 21 Bighas 9 Katthas & 15 Chittaks. Out of the remaining portion of the area, namely, 17 bighas, 4 katthas & 8 chittaks, the said Bibhuty Bhusan Lahary, directly or through his concern M/s Punjab Line Properties Private Limited, executed multiple tenancy agreements and/or issued tenancy bills for smaller demarcated portions, in favour of various individual parties. Accordingly, the petitioner was put in possession of Plot Nos A and B. The petitioner claimed to have been so inducted as a monthly tenant in respect of the said plots sometime in 1953 and had been enjoying the property at a monthly rental of Rs, 968/- payable according to the English calendar. The rent was last paid in the month of March 2003.

4. The lease in respect of the said land had been granted in favour of Shri Bibhuty Bhusan Lahary for a period of 50 years by HMC, which expired in 2003. Since then, neither Bibhuty Bhusan Lahary nor any other person claiming through him had demanded rent from the petitioner. As HMC failed to complete the process of sale, several written representations were made by the petitioners. HMC also wrote a letter to the respondent no. 4 on April 28, 2012, with a request to accord approval at an early date so that the two plots comprised in Holding No. 432(Part), G.T. Road (North), Police Station – Golabari, Ward No. 60, Howrah – 711101 could be conveyed in favour of the petitioner for a total price of Rs. 4,39,09,348/- on “as is where is basis”. As silence prevailed, the petitioner again made a representation before HMC sometime in May 2012. On December 18, 2012, the respondent no. 4 wrote a letter to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document