The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the Kolkata Municipal Corporation’s (KMC) order permitting the amalgamation of adjoining properties for the rehabilitation and redevelopment of a condemned building at 80-81, Bentinck Street, Kolkata.
Justice Rai Chattopadhyay held that KMC’s direction to merge the dilapidated Bentinck Street premises with the adjacent property for redevelopment was neither illegal nor arbitrary. The Court observed that Section 412A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, which governs the demolition and reconstruction of dangerous buildings, does not prohibit amalgamation when such a step ensures adequate rehabilitation of tenants.
The petitioner, a tenant of 80, Bentinck Street, had challenged KMC’s order dated October 9, 2021, and a corrigendum dated October 26, 2021, arguing that the amalgamation was beyond KMC’s powers under Section 412A and that the proposed scheme failed to provide proper rehabilitation to tenants; therefore, the same is grossly arbitrary and blatantly illegal. He contended that the authority had acted in collusion with the building owners and developer to include adjoining premises not declared as unsafe.
Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that the amalgamation was beyond KMC’s statutory powers and violated the tenants’ rights, the Court remarked that “an amalgamation process is not something alien to the law which governs the parties in this case.” Justice Chattopadhyay clarified that the legislative intent behind Section 412A was to secure tenant protection and ensure safe redevelopment of condemned buildings. The Court emphasised that the provision is “not prohibitory but enabling,” allowing relaxation of building rules and even property amalgamation to achieve feasible and transparent rehabilitation.
The Court noted that the owner had agreed to provide equivalent floor space to all existing tenants and that KMC’s order maintained procedural fairness by inviting objections and directing due compliance.
Concluding that the order was “just, fair, proper and lawful,” the Court refused to interfere, holding that the impugned direction was issued in conformity with statutory provisions and prior municipal orders. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Appearances
Petitioner- Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Arif Ali, Ms. Bikash Kumar Roy
Respondents- Mr. Alok Kumar Ghosh, Mr. Dwijadas Chakraborty, Mr. Sanjoy Basu, Mr. P.B. Mullick
