Market redevelopment must follow binding judicial directions, with stallholders required to cooperate.

The Kolkata Municipal Corporation (“KMC”) formulated a scheme in or around 1993 for the modernisation and redevelopment of Lansdowne Market, covering approximately 10,500 square metres, and entrusted the redevelopment work to Happy Homes and Hotels (P) Ltd.

The market’s stall-holders and squatters alleged that they were threatened with dispossession and demolition of their stalls without compliance with the directions issued by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 1 March 1995 in Appeal No. 158 of 1994 and Matter No. 60 of 1994.

The 1995 directions required phased construction, prior provision of alternative accommodation, seven days’ notice to affected stall-holders, accommodation of substantially equivalent area and facilities, and re-allotment of substantially equivalent space on the ground floor after reconstruction.

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Division Bench’s judgment in SLP No. 12182 of 1995, while recording KMC’s statement that an alternative site near the market had been earmarked for the stall-holders.

The petitioners stated that they were not opposed to redevelopment but sought disclosure of the sanctioned plan, the temporary relocation arrangements and the proposed re-establishment of the existing stall-holders.

During the hearing, KMC and the developer placed the sanctioned plan and other relevant documents before the Court.

The Court considered all four writ petitions together, along with the connected applications.

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to fresh reliefs or directions concerning the redevelopment of Lansdowne Market on the ground that the sanctioned plan and redevelopment arrangements had not been disclosed to them.

2. Whether KMC and the developer had to proceed with the redevelopment in accordance with the binding directions issued by the Division Bench on 1 March 1995 and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

3. Whether the stall-holders were required to cooperate with the redevelopment process and whether KMC and the developer could seek police assistance to prevent obstruction or disturbance to the project.

The Court applied the binding directions issued by the Division Bench in Appeal No. 158 of 1994 and Matter No. 60 of 1994 on 1 March 1995, which required redevelopment to be undertaken in five phases; prior shifting of affected stall-holders to alternative accommodation; seven days’ notice before shifting; provision of accommodation substantially equivalent in area and facilities; uninterrupted continuation of the stall-holders’ businesses; and subsequent allotment of substantially equivalent ground-floor space in the reconstructed market.

The Supreme Court’s order dated 11 July 1995 in SLP No. 12182 of 1995, refusing to interfere with the Division Bench’s judgment, left those directions operative and recorded KMC’s undertaking regarding an alternative site near the market.

The Court consequently treated the 1995 directions as binding and comprehensive, requiring KMC, the developer and the stall-holders to act in conformity with them.

The Court found that the writ petitions raised no substantially new legal issue.

The principal grievance was that the petitioners sought information concerning the sanctioned building plan and the steps proposed for redevelopment; however, KMC and the developer had placed the sanctioned plan and other documents before the Court.

The Court held that the Division Bench had already considered the relevant redevelopment and rehabilitation concerns and had issued a complete framework governing phased construction, relocation, preservation of business, and re-allotment of space.

It further observed that the redevelopment process had been delayed by disputes and infighting among the different committees representing the market’s shop-owners.

Since the 1995 judgment remained binding and no independent ground for intervention was established, the Court directed the parties to implement that judgment rather than impose a separate redevelopment scheme or require a fresh tender.

KMC and the developer were directed to complete the redevelopment of Lansdowne Market strictly in accordance with the Division Bench’s directions dated 1 March 1995.

All shop-owners were directed to comply with those directions and assist KMC and the developer in completing the project, with the applicable time frame receiving a fresh extension from the date of the judgment.

KMC and the developer were permitted to obtain police assistance to prevent unnecessary obstruction or disturbance, subject to proceeding in accordance with law.