Compulsory acquisition requires statutory authority and Article 300A safeguards; compensation alone cannot validate deprivation of property.

Section 352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 was read as a land-identification provision for public streets and related amenities, not as a standalone source of compulsory acquisition power; the acquisition power instead lies in the Act's separate acquisition chapter, including Section 537. Article 300A requires more than compensation for lawful deprivation of property: notice, opportunity to object, reasoned decision, public purpose, fair compensation, and an effective acquisition process. Section 363 was treated only as a compensation clause linked to acquisition by agreement, so it could not cure the absence of compulsory-acquisition safeguards or validate acquisition under Section 352.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 confers power on the Municipal Commissioner to compulsorily acquire immovable property. (ii) Whether the presence of a compensation provision under Section 363 can by itself validate compulsory acquisition without the procedural safeguards required by Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether Section 352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 confers power on the Municipal Commissioner to compulsorily acquire immovable property.

Analysis: Section 352 is located in the part of the Act dealing with streets and public places and is framed as a provision enabling the Municipal Commissioner to identify land required for public streets, parks, squares, gardens and parking places. The actual process for acquisition is separately placed in Chapter XXXIII, where Section 535 recognises the Corporation's power to acquire property, Section 536 provides for acquisition by agreement, and Section 537 provides for compulsory acquisition through the State Government on application by the Municipal Commissioner. On text, context and scheme, Section 352 does not itself contain the power of compulsory acquisition.

Conclusion: Section 352 does not confer a standalone power of compulsory acquisition; that power lies under the acquisition provisions of the Act, particularly Section 537.

Issue (ii): Whether the presence of a compensation provision under Section 363 can by itself validate compulsory acquisition without the procedural safeguards required by Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The constitutional protection of property under Article 300A is not exhausted by compensation alone. A valid deprivation of property requires authority of law and must satisfy the minimum constitutional content of acquisition, including notice, opportunity to object, a reasoned decision, public purpose, fair compensation, an efficient and timely process, and final vesting. Section 363 was treated as a compensation provision linked to acquisition by agreement and not as a substitute for a lawful compulsory-acquisition process. In the absence of the necessary procedural framework, a mere payment mechanism cannot cure the invalidity of the acquisition.

Conclusion: Section 363 does not validate compulsory acquisition in the absence of the procedural safeguards mandated by Article 300A.

Final Conclusion: The acquisition action taken under Section 352 was illegal, and the challenge to the High Court's judgment failed. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A provision that merely identifies land for a public purpose and a separate compensation clause cannot constitute valid compulsory acquisition unless the statute also provides the essential procedural safeguards that form part of the authority of law under Article 300A.

---