Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
48 Ct. No.09 Smt. Swapna Sarkar vs The State Of W. B. & Ors on 19 June, 2017
Author: R. K. Bag
Bench: R. K. Bag
1
19.06. W. P. 4918 (W) of 2014
g.b. 2017
48 Ct. No.09 Smt. Swapna Sarkar
Vs.
The State of W. B. & Ors.
Mr. Raj Dip Roy
Mr. Kuldeep Rai
Ms. Mousomee Shome
........For the Petitioner
Mr. Mrinal Kanti Biswas
.......For the State
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging
the order dated November 6, 2013 issued by the Estate
Manager, Kalyani (Annexure P/9 to the writ application).
The petitioner acquired lease-hold interest in land
measuring 4 Cottahs 15 Chattaks 26 square feet in plot
no.146, Block 12B in the town of Kalyani by virtue of
lease deed dated December 8, 1987 under the terms and
conditions incorporated in the said lease deed. The
erstwhile lessee from whom the petitioner acquired lease-
hold interest in the land in question submitted an
application before the Estate Manager, Kalyani on July
16, 2007 praying for permission to transfer her lease-hold
interest in favour of the present petitioner. On January
17, 2008 the Estate Manager, Kalyani communicated to
the erstwhile lessee and the present petitioner the fact of
deposit of Rs. 1,98,945/- as transfer fees in terms of
2
Notification no. 4247-UD/0/M/K&P/L-1/2005 dated
December 18, 2007. Without depositing the fees for
transfer of lease-hold interest, the erstwhile lessee
submitted an application before the Estate Manager,
Kalyani on March 14, 2008 praying for deposit of transfer
fees as per old notification. Since the permission for
transfer of lease-hold interest of the lessee was not
refused by the Estate Manager, Kalyani, the said lessee
assigned her lease-hold interest in favaour of the present
petitioner by executing one registered deed on July 15,
2008. On August 12, 2010 the petitioner submitted
application before the Estate Manager, Kalyani praying for
mutation of her name in the records of the land in
question. In view of the inaction on the part of the Estate
Manager, Kalyani the petitioner moved writ petition being
W. P. 26197(W) of 2013 before this Court. On September
12, 2013 learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of
the said writ petition by observing that mutation of name
of the petitioner in the Government records will be made
on payment of the amount demanded under notice dated
January 17, 2008 along with reasonable interest thereon.
Learned Single Judge gave liberty to the Estate Manager
to decide the quantum of demand for mutation of the
3
name of the petitioner in place of the erstwhile lessee in
respect of the property in question within specified period
of time. Accordingly, on November 6, 2013 the Estate
Manager directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 3,73,022/-
as transfer permission fees along with penalty in terms of
one G. O. dated December 16, 2011, which is under
challenge in the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is willing to deposit the transfer fees, but the
amount has been increased by the Estate Manager by
quoting Government order which is not in accordance
with the order passed by learned Single Judge of this
Court.
On the other land, learned counsel representing the
State respondents submits that learned Single Judge gave
liberty to the Estate Manager to indicate the total quantum of demand to be deposited by the petitioner for the purpose of mutation and the said demand would include reasonable amount of interest on the original demand made in the notice dated January 17, 2008.
Having heard learned counsel representing both parties and on consideration of the impugned notice dated November 6, 2013 I find that the erstwhile lessee did not 4 deposit the transfer fees from January 17, 2008. The reasonable amount of interest on the demand will be at least @ 9% per annum on Rs. 1,98,945/-, as the said rate was prevailing on fixed deposit/term deposit in the year 2008. The petitioner will deposit the transfer fees after lapse of almost 9 years. The principal amount of Rs. 1,98,945/- along with interest which would have accrued on the demand made in the notice dated January 17, 2008, would have been more than what is indicated in the notice by the Estate Manager on November 6, 2013. More over, the Estate Manager was directed by learned Single Judge to indicate the total amount of demand for mutation of the name of the petitioner within specified period of time. So, the notice issued by the Estate Manager, Kalyani on November 6, 2013 is in compliance with the direction of this Court.
In view of my above findings I do not find any cogent reason to interfere in the notice dated November 6, 2013 issued by the Estate Manager to the present petitioner. There is no merit in the present writ petition and as such writ petition is dismissed.
(R. K. Bag, J.) 5