NARAYAN MISTRY Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although the matter is appearing under the heading "Application", by consent of Mr. Ananda Haider, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Santosh Kumar Mandal, learned Government Pleader for the respondents, we take up the hearing of the appeal itself for final disposal. This is an appeal against the judgment and Order dated February 15, 2012 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court rejecting an application under Article 226 of the Constitution with costs assessed at 300 GMs payable to the Administration.

(2.) Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has come up with this appeal.

(3.) The writ petitioner filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that he was the sole recorded tenant of the land-in-dispute, which he had inherited from his mother, namely, Shrimati Jamuna Mistry, since deceased. It was contended that his mother bequeathed the disputed property in his favour by executing a will. On his prayer his name has been mutated in relation to the property-in-dispute, but the authorities were not granting occupancy right in his favour.