Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Another v. Bimal Kumar Shah and Others

The Corporation entered upon the respondent's property in Kolkata and recorded its own name in the municipal records, claiming to have acquired the land under Section 352 of the Act, with compensation payable under Section 363. The Calcutta High Court held that Section 352 confers no power of compulsory acquisition and directed the Corporation either to acquire the land in accordance with law or to restore it.

Writing for the Court, Narasimha J. held that the 'authority of law' required by Article 300A is not satisfied merely by an enabling provision and the payment of compensation. The Article embodies seven procedural sub-rights: the right to notice; the right to be heard; the right to a reasoned decision; the duty to acquire only for a public purpose; the right of restitution or fair compensation; the right to an efficient and expeditious process; and the right of conclusion, that is, the duty to complete the process and the vesting.

These sub-rights reflect the procedures found in Indian acquisition statutes and in comparable jurisdictions, and a law providing only for compensation does not satisfy Article 300A. Section 352 merely enables the Commissioner to identify land needed for public streets and similar purposes; it provides no procedure for acquisition. Under the Act, land can be compulsorily acquired only through the State Government under Sections 536 and 537.