Authority: Calcutta High Court, Court No.12 (gc)

Order Date: 01.10.2026

Case Overview

  • The appellants, M/s. Haji Munna Miah and Company Private Limited & Ors., filed an application (CAN 1 of 2026) seeking condonation of a 53‑day delay in preferring an appeal; the court accepted the explanation and regularised the appeal.
  • A second application (CAN 2 of 2026) arose from a judgment dated 1 July 2026 in WPA 29647 of 2025, where the appellants sought a direction to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) to correct municipal records by inserting the appellants’ name and deleting the Kolkata Improvement Trust’s (KIT) name for Plot No. 781, Premises No. 22, Golf Club Road (Uday Shankar Sarani).
  • The appellants contended that only part of the premises was acquired by KIT and that they held title to the remaining portion based on a deed of transfer; they relied on an earlier writ order indicating that only 6 Bighas 18 Cottahs 12 Chittaks 35 sq ft were acquired by KIT.
  • Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and Land Acquisition Case No. 118‑34 of 1968 showed that the entire Premises No. 22 was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for KIT Scheme 118, with an award declared on 27 July 1981, compensation of Rs 3,32,996.67 paid, and possession taken on 21 August 1981.
  • KMC’s change of name in municipal records was based on a Municipal Commissioner order dated 11 March 2011, effective from Q3 2005‑2006, as confirmed by a report countersigned by the Assessor‑Collector (T Tax) Department.
  • KMDA was not represented; however, its advocate submitted that the entire Premises No. 22 had been acquired and directed the court to produce KIT Scheme 118 records and the Land Acquisition Collector’s records.
  • The court examined the Scheme notification under Section 49(1) of the Kolkata Improvement Act, 1911, and the public notice under Section 48, concluding that the entire Premises No. 22 was acquired, with an award passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
  • The court held that there was no evidence of partial acquisition; consequently, it could not direct the municipality to insert the appellants’ name. The issue of title must be adjudicated in a civil suit, not by a writ court.
  • The court noted that Plot No. 781 measures around 18 Bighas and comprises Premises No. 22, but the acquisition covered the entirety of Premises No. 22; the question of whether the appellants’ claimed title pertains to the whole plot or a part must be decided in a civil proceeding.
  • The court emphasized that possession or entry in municipal records does not create or negate title; title must be proved before a civil court.

Final Outcome

  • CAN 1 of 2026: Delay of 53 days condoned; the appeal is regularised.
  • CAN 2 of 2026: The writ appeal is dismissed; the matter is referred to an appropriate civil court for determination of title.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Parties may obtain an urgent certified copy of the order upon usual undertaking.

Topics: Land Acquisition, Municipal Records