HCMONTHLY CASE LAW ARCHIVE

Calcutta High Court Judgments in February 2026: Case Law Digest

Read 7 LawLens analyses of Calcutta High Court judgments published in February 2026, covering key rulings, legal principles and case law.

← BACK TO CALCUTTA COURT REPORT

PERMANENT MONTHLY EDITIONS

Browse by month

AUTOMATICALLY UPDATED

February 2026 Judgments

7 ARTICLES · NEWEST FIRST
### Arbitrator cannot be appointed under Section 11(1)(b) of the 1947 Act for periods of unauthorized occupation. Case Summary: Facts: The petitioners' premises were requisitioned under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947. After the statutory requisition period expired on March 31, 1992, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation remained in "wrongful and illegal" possession until January 13, 2023. The petitioners sought the appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(1)(b) of the Act to determine compensation for this period of unauthorized occupation. Issue: Whether an Arbitrator can be appointed under the 1947 Act to determine compensation for a period during which the property was held without legal authority after the requisition ended. Ruling: The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 11(1)(b) applies strictly to premises under valid requisition. Relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in *Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. v. W.B. Mineral Development*, the Court concluded that once the requisition period expires and possession becomes illegal, the statutory machinery for appointing an Arbitrator cannot be invoked to assess mesne profits or compensation for that period. Revision of rent during such periods must follow the specific caps and procedures under Section 14A of the Act.. Aditya Almal and Anr. vs. The First Land Acquisition Collector, Kolkata and Anr. [2026:CHC-OS:65]. Calcutta High Court. LawLens

Calcutta High Court·

Property and Real Estate LawArbitration and Mediation

### Arbitrator cannot be appointed under Section 11(1)(b) of the 1947 Act for periods of unauthorized occupation. Case Summary: Facts: The petitioners' premises were requisitioned under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947. After the statutory requisition period expired on March 31, 1992, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation remained in "wrongful and illegal" possession until January 13, 2023. The petitioners sought the appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(1)(b) of the Act to determine compensation for this period of unauthorized occupation. Issue: Whether an Arbitrator can be appointed under the 1947 Act to determine compensation for a period during which the property was held without legal authority after the requisition ended. Ruling: The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 11(1)(b) applies strictly to premises under valid requisition. Relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in *Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. v. W.B. Mineral Development*, the Court concluded that once the requisition period expires and possession becomes illegal, the statutory machinery for appointing an Arbitrator cannot be invoked to assess mesne profits or compensation for that period. Revision of rent during such periods must follow the specific caps and procedures under Section 14A of the Act.

The petitioners’ predecessor owned Premises No. 2, Garstin Place, Kolkata, which was requisitioned in portions between 1965 and 1986 under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 19...

2 MIN READ