Form No. J(2) Sl. No. 18 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Before: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY WPA 29647 of 2025 M/s. Haji Munna Miah and Company Private Limited & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the Petitioners : Mr. Rudranil De, Adv. Mr. Nemai Chandra Betal, Adv. For the KMC : Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Debangana De, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sukanta Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Arghya Chatterjee, Adv. For KMDA/respondent no. 4 : Mr. Satyjit Talukder, Adv. Mr. Arindam Chatterjee, Adv. Hearing Concluded on : 1st July, 2026. Judgment on : 1st July, 2026. RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.: 1. Considering the objection raised by Mr. Talukder, learned advocate representing the KMDA, leave is granted to the learned advocate for the 2 WPA 29647 of 2025 petitioners to correct the cause title insofar as respondent no. 4 is concerned in course of the day. 2. The petitioners being aggrieved by change and alteration of municipal records whereby the names of the petitioners stood deleted and the name of Kolkata Improvement Trust (KIT) having registered office at P-16 India Exchange Place (Extension), 6th Floor, Kolkata – 700073 stood inserted in respect of premises no. 22, Uday Sankar Sarani, Kolkata - 700033 pertaining to assessee no. 210940301002, the instant writ petition has been filed. 3. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid alteration has been made without notice and/or affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 20th January, 2026 this Court having regard to the case made out by the petitioners had directed that the status quo in respect of the assessing property shall be maintained. Such interim order is subsisting. The municipality subsequently filed a report duly countersigned by the Assessor Collector AC (T Tax) Department, KMC wherein it was observed that change of ownership was done as per the order of the Municipal Commissioner dated 11th March, 2011, as per IB records with effect from 3rd quarter of 2005-2006. 4. Mr. Talukder, learned advocate representing the KMDA had, however, submitted before this Court that the entire premise being premise no. 22, 3 WPA 29647 of 2025 Golf Club Road, (Now Uday Sankar Sarani Road), Kolkata which forms subject matter of the writ petition had been acquired following which this Court directed the respondent no. 4 to produce the KIT Scheme 118 showing the extent of acquisition of premise no. 22, Golf Club Road, Kolkata. Later, by an order dated 17th June, 2026 this Court had directed the respondent no. 5 being the First Land Acquisition Collector to be personally present in Court along with records when the matter is taken up next. In pursuance of such direction, Mr. Biswajit Roy Chowdhury, Assistant Director, WBLRS is personally present in Court with the records, as such the presence of the respondent no. 5 is excused. 5. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate representing the State has by placing before this Court the notification dated 31st May, 1968 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Kolkata Improvement Act, 1911 (hereinafter as the “said Act”) would submit that a scheme had been notified for general information that in exercise of powers conferred under Section 48 of the said Act and the Governor had been pleased to sanction the General Improvement Scheme known as Scheme 118 (Tollygunge Area, Prince Gulam Md. Shah Road – Golf Club Road) ward no. 95/96 of the Corporation of Calcutta (now Kolkata) which had seen been submitted by the Board of Trustees for the improvement of Kolkata under Section 47 of the said Act. The boundaries of the scheme area have duly been indicated in such notification and the list of premises which were proposed to be acquired and the list of premises which were scheduled for levy of 4 WPA 29647 of 2025 betterment fees in terms of the said Act which were not proposed to be acquired have also been indicated. As would appear therefrom, the premises no. 22, Golf Club Road in its entirety was sought to be acquired. He submits by placing before this Court the copy of the award passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 that the entirety of the premises being 22, Golf Club Road, Kolkata comprising of area of 6 bighas 18 kathas 12 chittaks and 35 sqaure feet have been acquired. Not only the compensation therefor but also the enhanced compensation was disbursed in favour of the claimants. The endorsement made on the copy of the award showing disbursement of payment of compensation in favour of the claimants would also corroborate therefrom. 6. Having regard to the same, it is submitted, since, entirety of the premises no. 22, Golf Club Road, Kolkata was acquired, there is no irregularity on the part of the municipality in recording the same in the name of the KMDA (erstwhile Calcutta Improvement Trust) for whom the acquisition was made. 7. Mr. Talukder, learned advocate supports such cause and would submit that the petitioners at all material point of time was aware with regard to the aforesaid. He has also placed before this Court the copy of the KIT Scheme no. 118 and the original plan thereof has also been produced. Upon perusal of the original plan, the same is returned to the respondents by retaining the copy of the scheme on the file. 5 WPA 29647 of 2025 8. Mr. De, learned advocate representing the petitioner has, however, drawn the attention of this Court to the title deed in vernacular, executed by Sk. Md. Fazel in favour of Sk. Munno, S/O Sk. Rhmatulla, the predecessor of the petitioners. By placing reliance on the schedule of the aforesaid title deed he would submit that what was conveyed in favour of the petitioners’ predecessor vide the title deed was 6 acres of raytee sthitiban land. The acquisition was only for 6 bighas, the same does not take away the title of the petitioners who are the successor in interest of the aforesaid Sk. Munnoo, in respect of the entirety of the property. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the document appearing at page 41 of the writ petition being a letter issued by the Kolkata Improvement Trust and the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench dated 28th November, 2013 directing consideration of the petitioners’ representation by the Land Acquisition Authorities. 9. Independent of the aforesaid he would submit that the petitioners’ name should be recorded in the records of the KMC and without giving opportunity of hearing the name ought not to have been removed. He further submits that despite directions passed by this Court, the orders based on which the aforesaid deletion of the petitioners’ name was made, could not be produced by the respondents. As such, in the fitness of things, the petitioners’ name should be restored in the file and at least, an opportunity should be given to the petitioners to make appropriate representation. 6 WPA 29647 of 2025 10. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record, I find that in the instant case a notification was published in terms of Section 49(1) of the said Act whereby the State Government had sanctioned the scheme. To more fully appreciate the scope of Section 49(1) of the said Act, the same is extracted hereinbelow:- “49. Notification of sanction to improvement scheme. - (1) Whenever the [State Government] [Words substituted by the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950.] sanctions an improvement scheme, it shall announce the fact by notification, and the Board shall forthwith proceed to execute the scheme.” 11. The said scheme as produced, as also the above notification, not only identifies boundaries of the area which is comprised in the scheme but the same also identifies the premises proposed to be acquired. Incidentally, the premises no. 22 Golf Club Road (now renamed as Uday Sankar Sarani) Kolkata forms part of the acquisition. The said notification also deals with the list of premises which were scheduled for levy of betterment fee in respect whereof the acquisition was not proceeded with. I do not find from the aforesaid document that premises no. 22, Golf Club Road now Uday Sankar Sarani was acquired in part. Although, Mr. De has tried to make out a case by relying on the title deed that the petitioners’ interest in the premises in question was far greater and the entirety of the premises was not acquired, however, having regard to the publication of the scheme effected on 31st May, 1968, I find that it is too late for the petitioners to 7 WPA 29647 of 2025 raise such issue and for this Court to accept such contention that too in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. This apart there is another aspect of the matter. Though, Mr. De would submit that the petitioners are in possession of the property, I am of the view, once, an award is passed and the possession thereof is taken over under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the subsequent entry into such property cannot be considered to be a legal possession by the owner who has lost its right, as once possession is taken under Section 16 thereof, the right of the owner in the said property extinguishes and the possession itself is deemed to be free from all encumbrances. 13. Independent of the above, it has also been pointed out by Mr. De that the petitioners’ name continued in the records of the municipal authorities, and that the municipal authorities all of a sudden had removed the name of the petitioners from the records. On this score, I find that the petitioners were not given opportunity of hearing. Though, the petitioners would insist that in their case an opportunity of hearing should be granted, I am of the view ,in the given facts, when the petitioners are unable to establish any right over the property, no fruitful purpose will be served by directing the municipality to consider the issue of deletion of the petitioners’ name, especially when the municipality is not competent to adjudicate on the title. 8 WPA 29647 of 2025 14. This order shall, however, not interfere with the rights of the petitioners to establish its cause in appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum, if so advised. 15. Since, no affidavits have been called for from the respondents, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents. 16. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 17. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) SG. A.R (Ct.)