NATHI DEVI KULTHIN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is to consider an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the writ petition' in short), inter alia, challenging inaction on the part of Secretary, Metropolitan Development Department, Government of West Bengal in not mutating the name of the writ petitioner in respect of plot No. 143, Block-AD appertaining to Sector-I of Salt Lake City.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of the said writ petition are summarised as under:

(3.) Mr. Ranabir Mahapartra, learned advocate, appearing for the writ petitioner, argued that there was no bona fide reason and justification on the part of the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 2 not to mutate the name of the writ petitioner in respect of the said plot of land. Mr. Mahapatra draws my attention to the clauses of the said deed of lease dated March 3, 1972 and submitted that there was no prohibition on the part of the lessee to transfer his interest in the leasehold estate and as such the authorities concerned ought to have accepted the bona fide prayer of the writ petitioner for mutation of her name in respect of the said plot of land. Mr. Mahapatra in support of his contentions cited the decisions in the cases of Prabir Kumar Kar v. State of West Bengal and Ors., reported in 1992(2) CHN 289, Tarachand Dalmia v. State of West Bengal and Ors., reported in 1994(1) CHN 15 and Smt. Ajanta Basu v. State of West Bengal and Ors., reported in AIR 1996 Calcutta 309. Mr. Mahapatra, accordingly, submits that the facts and circumstances of the present case are exactly identical and, accordingly, there was no reason not to mutate the name of the writ petitioner, particularly, in the absence of a provision in the original lease deed dated March 3, 1972 restricting transfer or assignment of the leasehold estate by the lessee in favour of a third person.