Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re: Smt. Rukmini Devi Bhartia vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 September, 2011
Author: Soumitra Pal
Bench: Soumitra Pal
1
011
W.P. 14075(W) of 2011
In re: Smt. Rukmini Devi Bhartia ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Debashis Saha ... for the petitioner
Mr. Idris Ali ... for the State
Let affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record.
In the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents, particularly on the Land Manager, Bidhannagar, Urban Development and Municipal Affairs, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata and on the Officer on Special Duty and 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 his name in place and stead of Atam Singh Sabharwal, the original lessee, in respect of premises no. Block-CB, Plot No.166, Sector-I, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064.
It appears that Atam Singh Sabharwal, since deceased, was the original lessee and the West Bengal Government was the lessor. During his life time the lessee constructed a building on the plot of land in question. On or about 26th February, 1987 the lessee made and published a Will in respect of the said property at Salt Lake. In the said Will the testator bequeathed the said property in favour of the petitioner. Atam Singh Sabharwal expired on 1st April, 2007 and after his death the proforma respondent applied for grant of probate before the High Court at Calcutta. Probate was granted on 27th November, 2008 in Case No. PLA No.275 of 2008. After probate was granted the proforma respondent made a representation dated 19th March, 2009 before the respondent nos. 4 and 5 to mutate the name in favour of the petitioner who was the legatee of the Will. Since there was no reply reminders were sent on 9th November, 2009 and on 23rd December, 2009. It was followed by a letter dated 6th August, 2010 demanding justice. According to the petitioner, as the name of the petitioner is yet to be mutated, aggrieved this writ petition has been filed.
Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent nos. 4 and 5 to dispose of the representations filed on 19th March, 2009, on 9th November, 2009 and on 23rd 2 December, 2009 by passing a reasoned order to be communicated to the parties after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent no.6 and after verifying the records and after making an inspection of the premises. It is made clear that in the event the Joint Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs, Government of West Bengal, the respondent no.2 is of the opinion that there was violation of the clauses in the lease deed, he is at liberty to determine the lease by passing a reasoned order within eight weeks from the date of presenting a copy of the certified copy of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent no.6 and after making an enquiry. It is also made clear that any order passed by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 shall be dependent on the outcome of the order passed by the respondent no.2.
I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the case and all points are left open to be dealt with by the respondent nos. 2, 4 and 5.
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.
There will be no order as to costs.
Let urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the appearing parties on priority basis.
( Soumitra Pal, J.)