Authority: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
Order Date: 17 August 2026
Case Overview
- Appeals: Civil Appeal Nos. 10762‑10763/2026 (Merlin Projects Ltd) and 10764‑10765/2026 (PVC Wires and Cables Pvt Ltd) filed as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 27300‑27301/2026 and 27404‑27405/2026 respectively.
- Respondent: Chittaranjan Das & Ors.
- Background: High Court at Calcutta had issued interim orders restraining the appellants from proceeding with construction on land alleged to be a water body (“Danga”/“Pukur”). The Court sought the stance of Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) on this finding.
- KMC affidavit (affidavit of Director General, Building) stated that on 9 December 2019 the Government of West Bengal, Office of District Land and Land Reforms, issued a land‑conversion certificate under Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act for plot numbers 717, 719/1176 and 720, permitting multi‑storied housing.
- The affidavit further argued that under Rule 166 of the Land and Land Reforms Manual 1991 the cut‑off date for conversion applications was 24 March 1986, and that the property was a factory in 1983‑84, effectively converted in use long before the 2017‑19 certificates.
- Counsel appearing: For appellants – Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi and Nakul Dewan; for KMC – Senior Counsel Kunal Chatterjee; for original writ petitioners – Senior Counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Biswaroop Bhattacharya; for State of West Bengal – Uddyam Mukherjee.
- The Court noted that the matter was substantially before the High Court and refrained from expressing any view on the merits.
Final Outcome
- The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
- It set aside the High Court’s interim relief restraining the appellants from proceeding with the development/construction.
- The appeals (both Merlin Projects Ltd and PVC Wires & Cables Pvt Ltd) stand disposed of as per the signed order.
- All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
- The Court left it to the High Court to finally decide all issues between the parties, emphasizing that third‑party rights have been created and urging a priority decision on the main matter.
Topics: Land Use Dispute, Court Order