CHABI CHOWDHURY Vs. VSSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to an advertisement and/or public notification issued by the Government of West Bengal for allotment of plot of land at Kalyani in the district of Nadia subject to payment of premium and/or salami on lease for a period of 999 years, one Gouri Dutta made an application for allotment of a plot of land in Kalyani in the year 1963. The Government of West Bengal agreed to allow the said Gouri Dutta a plot of land being B-4/28 at Kalyani on receipt of the payment of consideration price on lease for a period of 999 years in the year 1963. Accordingly, an agreement for lease was executed between the state government and the said Gouri Dutta on 12/7/1963. On the date of execution of the agreement the said allottee disputed a sum of Rs.460.00 being 10% of the premium and salami. Further case of the petitioner is that her husband died in an accident. She had no issue. Her cousin sister used to look after her. Therefore, during the last days of her life she desired to bequeath her leasehold right and interest in the said plot of land in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly she executed a will in favour of the petitioner on 26/12/2003. The said will was duly probated by this Court on 28/4/2014 in PLA No.291 of 2001. After obtaining the said probate the petitioner submitted an application before the respondent No.4 on 15/5/2014 and thereafter a reminder on 22/8/2014 for mutation of her name in respect of the plot of land which was leased out to one Gouri Dutta by executing a deed of lease. Since the State Government failed to take any decision on the representation made by the petitioner for mutating her name in respect of the leasehold property in place of the original lessee on the strength of her last will and testament, she made last and final representation on 13/5/2015 before the respondent No.4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of receipt of all such representations, the respondent did not pay any heed and sat tight over the matter and thus failed to record her name as lessee in respect of the said plot in question at Kalyani. This led the petitioner to file a writ petition being WP No.11567(W) of 2015 with appropriate relief commanding the respondents to mutate her name in the record of rights as lessee. A Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 15/6/2015 directing the respondent No.4 i.e. that Estate Manager to consider and take final decision and the prayer of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of four weeks. The respondent No.4 directed the petitioner to attend a hearing in his office chamber on 6/8/2015. At the time of hearing a question was raised by the respondent No.4 as to why the said leasehold land remained unutilized and the final lease deed not executed by the original allottee Smt. Gouri Dutta during her life time. It was informed by the petitioner that during the life time of the original allottee the possession of the land in question was not handed over to her and therefore execution of lease deed by her did not arise. The respondent No.4 passed an order dtd. 24/8/2015 holding, inter alia, that the original allottee did not take possession of the land in question. She did not come forward to execute the lease deed and the said plot is still lying vacant in contrary to the provision of the lease agreement. Therefore, the agreement for lease was terminated on 26/5/2015. The said order dtd. 24/8/2015 is impugned in the instant writ petition. The petitioner has also alleged that she was not served with the order dtd. 26/5/2015 at any point of time.

(2.) On such factual background the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why the order dtd. 26/5/2015 as well as the order dtd. 21/8/2015 shall not be set aside and further directing the respondents to record the name of the petitioner as lessee in respect of the said plot of land at Kalyani, Nadia on completion of necessary formalities. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari and other consequential reliefs.

(3.) Respondents were not represented at the time of hearing of the instant writ petition. Therefore, this Court proceeds to dispose of the instant writ petition on the basis of the submission made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner.