(1.) The petitioner questions the propriety of an order dated July 2, 2014 passed by the District Registrar, North 24-Parganas in connection with the petitioner's application for registration of a deed of assignment pertaining to a property in Salt Lake. As a consequence of the order, the document has not been registered and the petitioner cannot seek mutation of the property in favour of the transferee.
(2.) The petitioner refers to a Division Bench judgment of this court rendered on March 11, 2015 on what the petitioner claims to be a deed of lease containing the identical terms as the subject deed of lease. According to the petitioner, there were two kinds of lease deeds executed by the State or the appropriate authorities in connection with the grant of rights in respect of Salt Lake properties: a lease which has come to be popularly known as the 17-clause deed which has no restrictions on the transfer of the rights thereunder; and, another form of lease known as the 20-clause lease where they may be some clauses restricting the right to transfer or assign the benefits under the deed.
(3.) The petitioner says that it is the undisputed position that this matter involves a 17-clause deed which contains no restrictions as to transfer of the rights under the deed in any manner whatsoever. The petitioner says that since it was a 999-year lease granted by the State in favour of the original lessee and that is almost as good as an absolute transfer, no impediments to the lessee's rights may ordinarily be construed or read into the deed unless expressly provided for. The petitioner says that, in any event, the unreported Division Bench judgment of March 11, 2015 in MAT 2248 of 2014 (State of West Bengal v. Ajay Poddar, 2015 2 CalHN 509) recognises that the 17-clause deeds pertaining to Salt Lake properties have no restrictive covenants pertaining to transfer.