Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ram Chandra Agarwalla And Another vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 29 July, 2011
Author: Soumitra Pal
Bench: Soumitra Pal
1
29. 7. 2011
W.P. 12233(W) of 2011
Ram Chandra Agarwalla and another
Versus
The State of West Bengal and others
Mr. Debasis Saha,
..for the petitioners.
Mr. Pratik Prakash Banerjee,..
...for the Junior Standing Counsel.
Mr. Ayan Banerjee,
..for the State.
Let affidavit of service filed today be kept on
record.
In the writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a
direction upon the Land Manager, Bidhannagar, Urban
Development and Municipal Affairs, Government of West
Bengal, Sech Bhawan, Salt Lake City, Kolkata and on
the Officer on Special Duty & E.O. Deputy Secretary,
Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs,
Government of West Bengal, Kolkata, the respondent
nos. 4 and 5 respectively to mutate their names in place and stead of Dr. Gopal Chandra Dutta, the original lessee, since deceased, in respect of the property being plot no. HA-176 in Sector III, Salt Lake City, Kolkata as 2 mentioned in his last Will and Testament dated 26th December, 2003 made in favour of the petitioners since probate of the Will was granted on 21st December, 2009 by the High Court at Calcutta in P.L.A. No. 255 of 2003.
It appears that Dr. Gopal Chandra Dutta, since deceased, was the original lessee of the plot of land in question pursuant to the deed of lease dated 8th February, 1983 and the State of West Bengal was the lessor. Dr. Gopal Chandra Dutta expired on 21st October, 2004. The petitioners applied for probate in respect of the last Will and Testament of late Dr. Gopal Chandra Dutta and probate was granted by the High Court, as noted. Thereafter, the petitioner no.1 being the sole executrix of the Will made a representation before the respondent no.4 for mutating his name in respect of the property in question. Submission has been made that since it has not been disposed of, aggrieved this writ petition has been filed.
Mr. Pratik Prokash Banerjee, learned Junior Standing Counsel has submitted that though the genuineness of the Will is not in dispute, its effect in law 3 has to be determined and, therefore, prayer has been made for a direction upon the authorities to determine the lease.
In reply, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that since the Will is genuine, the question of its determination does not arise.
Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent nos. 4 and 5 to dispose of the representation dated 1st October, 2010 by passing a reasoned order to be communicated to the parties within a period of eight weeks from the date of presenting a copy of the certified copy of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and after making necessary enquiry. Further, the Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Urban Development Deprtment, Kolkata, the respondent no.3 is at liberty to initiate proceedings for determining the lease, if in his opinion, the entire transaction was illegal and in that event he shall proceed in accordance with law after giving the petitioners an 4 opportunity of hearing.
I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the case.
Since the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission without calling upon the respondents to file affidavits, allegations made are deemed not to have been admitted by them.
No order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the appearing parties on priority basis.
(Soumitra Pal, J. )