MAHADEO PRASAD AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order passed on 20th November, 1990, though a letter forwarding the said order has been annexed in the writ petition but the order has not been annexed. However, learned counsel for the petitioners produces a copy of the said order and contends that it was an accident due to which the order was not annexed. According to him, the petitioners are transferee from the original allottees. In the Deed of lease executed in favour of the original allottees, it did not contain any clause prohibiting transfer. Therefore, there is no earthly reason for refusal of mutation. He has also relied on the various subsequent orders passed by this Court directing the respondents to consider such question and after considering such question the respondents did not allow mutation. He has also relied on a decision in the case of Smt. Ajanta Basu v. State of West Bengal and Others reported in AIR 1996 Calcutta 309 by a learned single Judge of this Court in support of his contention. Therefore, according to him the respondents should be directed to reconsider the same having regard to the decision cited by him.

(2.) Mr. Manick Ch. Das, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that the order was passed in November, 1990 and as such simply on the ground of delay, this petition should be thrown out, particularly in the absence of any explanation therefor. He then contends that the decision was rendered at a point of time when these judgments or orders were not in existence. Now this matter cannot be reopened or reconsidered simply because the Courts have taken a different view in subsequent decisions or judgments. He then contends that the alleged transfer was made without obtaining permission from the lessor and therefore under the Government Grants Act the alleged transfer is invalid. Therefore, this writ petition should fail.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State respondent on the other hand submits that the lease or allotment of the land was governed by the Government Grants Act which prohibits transfer and excludes application of the Transfer of Property Act. He also points out from the lease Deed that it also contains a provision with regard to the transfer in Clause (8) of the said lease which permits transfer in between the co-sharers provided the lease is in favour of the lessees jointly. But then the question is with regard to the exclusion of the Transfer of Property Act. He also contends that subsequently in certain other clauses, conditions have been incorporated which have become part of the statute under which the petitioner is also governed with regard to his rights which is in fact a statutory lease governed by the conditions contained in the statute. Therefore, the petitioners cannot get any relief in this writ petition.