MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Leasehold Rights Cannot Confer Absolute Title: Calcutta High Court Mandates Freehold Conversion for KMDA Property

24 December 2024 4:26 PM

By: sayum


Court orders KMDA to execute a lease deed followed by conversion to freehold under the West Bengal Land Conversion Scheme, 2023, in favor of Roopkatha Bhattacharya. In a landmark judgment delivered on May 14, 2024, the Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of petitioner Roopkatha Bhattacharya, directing the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA) to convert her leasehold property to freehold. Justice Rai Chattopadhyay emphasized that KMDA, possessing only leasehold rights, could not transfer absolute title, thereby mandating compliance with the West Bengal Land Conversion (Leasehold land to Freehold) Scheme, 2023.

The case centered on Roopkatha Bhattacharya’s claim against KMDA for its failure to execute a sale deed for property purchased by her mother in 2001. Despite full payment and possession in 2003, KMDA only proposed a lease deed in 2018, prompting Bhattacharya to seek judicial intervention to enforce the original sale terms or secure equivalent freehold rights.

Justice Chattopadhyay noted the petitioner’s grievance but highlighted KMDA’s legal limitations. “The KMDA, having only leasehold rights over the property conferred by the government, cannot transfer absolute title,” the judgment stated, affirming that the initial brochure promising a sale deed was legally untenable.

The court stressed the principle of caveat emptor, noting that the petitioner’s reliance on the brochure did not absolve her of the responsibility to understand KMDA’s property rights. “The purchaser must be aware of the rights of the transferor,” the court emphasized, clarifying that KMDA’s offer of a sale was beyond its legal authority.

The court deemed the application of the West Bengal Land Conversion Scheme, 2023, appropriate. Justice Chattopadhyay directed KMDA to execute the lease deed promptly and facilitate the conversion to freehold, ensuring no additional charges to the petitioner. This decision aligns with a similar Supreme Court precedent in Malay Kumar Mandal vs. Sanghamitra Mandal & Anr.

The court ordered that the stamp duty for the lease deed be calculated based on rates at the time of the initial possession transfer in 2003, thereby alleviating the petitioner’s financial burden due to KMDA’s delay.

Justice Chattopadhyay remarked, “The transferor cannot confer rights beyond its legal capacity. The KMDA, possessing only leasehold rights, can validly execute a lease deed, which can then be converted to freehold under the 2023 Scheme.”

 

 

This judgment not only resolves the long-standing dispute between Roopkatha Bhattacharya and KMDA but also sets a crucial precedent for similar cases involving leasehold properties under government ownership. By applying the West Bengal Land Conversion Scheme, 2023, the court has provided a clear legal pathway for converting leasehold rights to freehold, reinforcing the legal framework for property transactions in West Bengal.

Date of Decision: May 14, 2024

Latest Legal News