SATYAJIT BISWAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the subject matter of both the writ petitions is almost identical, they are taken up for consideration together and proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The fact which is not in dispute is enunciated hereinbelow:- Ranajit Kumar Biswas, deceased predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, was granted lease in respect of a plot of land measuring about 4.1557 cottahs in premises no. AC-87, Saltlake, Sector- I, Kolkata - 700064 for a period of 999 years vide deed of lease registered on June 17, 1970. Possession of the premises was handed over to the lessee on December 11, 1970. Clause 2(6) (a) of the deed of lease contemplates construction of a building on the premises by the lessee within a period of three years from the date of possession or within such extended time as granted by the authority. The lessee passed away on August 10, 1973 and his widow also passed away on March 6, 1987.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that since the original lessee was issueless, his right, title and interest devolved upon the surviving heirs, i.e., the petitioners, upon his death. One of the surviving legal heirs Manojit Kumar Biswas has also expired. The said legal heir made several applications before the respondents seeking mutation of the names of the legal heirs in respect of the subject premises. A show cause notice was issued upon the original lessee Ranajit Kumar Biswas sometime in September, 1991 directing him to show cause as to why the premises should not be resumed on account of his failure to raise construction therein in terms of the deed. Upon receipt of the notice, the petitioners, by a letter issued on December 2, 1991, informed the authority that the original lessee had expired for which construction could not be raised within the stipulated time frame. They also requested the authority to inform them about the steps to be taken for remedy of such breach. The petitioners applied for mutation of the property in their favour on August 21, 1992 along with all relevant documents. Pursuant to several correspondences made between the parties, the petitioners were directed to pay the mutation fee by a letter issued by the authorities on September 4, 2001, which they paid. The petitioners were not in a position to apply for the requisite sanctions unless their names were mutated. Resumption order was issued against the petitioners on December 22, 2021 requesting the latter to hand over peaceful physical possession of the plot to the authority.