Owner's Failure To Provide Accommodation To Occupier After Demolitions U/S 412A Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act Not Subject To Police Action: High Court
In a case against a proceeding under Section 412A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (KMC Act), the Calcutta High Court held that failure on the part of the owner in providing an accommodation to the petitioner, claiming to be an occupier of the dilapidated building that was demolished, cannot be a subject matter for consideration by the police authorities.Section 412A empowers...
In a case against a proceeding under Section 412A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (KMC Act), the Calcutta High Court held that failure on the part of the owner in providing an accommodation to the petitioner, claiming to be an occupier of the dilapidated building that was demolished, cannot be a subject matter for consideration by the police authorities.
Section 412A empowers the civic body to evict residents of extremely dangerous and dilapidated buildings for the purpose of demolition. However, the authority has to provide the evicted residents 'certificate of residence' to assure their right to that particular building.
The petitioner herein, father of one of the tenants in the building, claimed that he was not given accommodation in the proposed building and in the plan, which is yet not sanctioned.
Justice Shampa Sarkar disposed of the petition without deciding the right of the petitioner either as an occupier or as a tenant and without adjudicating upon the actions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation regarding the demolition, leaving the petitioner free to avail remedies, if any, before appropriate fora.
When the proposed demolitions were challenged, the matter reached upto the Supreme Court and upon making an observation with regard to the accommodation of the tenants in the newly proposed building, KMC was directed to pass necessary orders by invoking the provisions of Section 412A of the KMC Act.
Thereafter, the KMC passed the order and several writ petitions were filed by tenants assailing the same before the High Court.
KMC claimed that all the tenants had been accommodated in the proposed building and the plan was submitted for sanction.
However, it was alleged that during the pendency of the challenge, the order of demolition was given effect.
The petitioner herein alleged that the police authorities failed to protect him against KMC's illegal actions, despite an order from the Metropolitan Magistrate which directed the police to ensure that no one is dispossessed without an order from the proper forum.
KMC claimed that the action of demolition was valid as it was legally sanctioned under Section 421A by the proper forum, i.e., KMC's Deputy Chief Engineer (Civil)/ Building Department. It also claimed that interests of the tenants as per the Supreme Court's directions were protected and that tenancy was provided to petitioner's son.
In view of these submissions, the High Court was of the view that if the petitioner has a grievance of being left out from the plan, the remedy would be before the appropriate Bench having jurisdiction.
Case Title : PKB CONSULTANCY VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 295