Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re: Ashis Kumar Mallik vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 28 September, 2011
Author: Soumitra Pal
Bench: Soumitra Pal
1
2011
W.P. 16221(W) of 2011
In re: Ashis Kumar Mallik ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Debasish Saha ... for the petitioner
Mr. Rajesh Ganguli ... 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, Kolkata and on the Officer on Special Duty and E.O. Deputy Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs, Kolkata, the respondent nos. 4 and 5 respectively to mutate his name in respect of Plot No.226, Block No.BL, Sector-II, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091 in place and stead of Sudhendu Raha, the original lessee, since deceased, in view of the probate granted on 21st December, 2009 by the High Court at Calcutta in PLA Case No.335 of 2009.
It appears that Sudhendu Raha, since deceased, was the original lessee and the State of West Bengal was the original lessor of the plot in question. On or before 30th December, 2002 the said Sudhendu Raha, since deceased, published his Will and bequeathed the said property in favour of the wife of the petitioner, namely, Sibani Trinka Mallik. The said Sudhendu Raha expired on 30th June, 2007. Thereafter, the petitioner being the executor of the Will applied for probate which was granted by the High Court on 21st December, 2009. After the grant of probate, as it appears, the petitioner filed applications dated 5th March, 2010 and 9th August, 2010 before the respondent no.4 for mutating the name of Sibani Trinka Mallik in place of the deceased testator and/or lease holder in respect of the said plot of land. Thereafter, on 30th September, 2010 a further reminder was sent to the respondent no.4. Since the applications for mutating the name of Sibani Trinka Mallik have not been disposed of by the respondent no.4, aggrieved this writ petition has been filed.
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 no.4 to dispose of the representations dated 5th March, 2010, 9th August, 2010 and 30th September, 2010 for mutating the Plot No.226, Block No.BL, Sector-II, Salt Lake City in favour of Sibani Trinka Mallik 2 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 petitioner and Sibani Trinka Mallik and after verifying the records and after making necessary enquiry. It is also made clear that the Joint Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs, Government of West Bengal, the respondent no.2, is at liberty to initiate proceedings if in his view there has been violation of the lease deed dated 27th March, 1984 and in that event he shall dispose of the same 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 Sibani Trinka Mallik and after making necessary enquiry. It is made clear that the respondent no.4 is at liberty to proceed with the matter regarding the grant of mutation which shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the respondent no.2.
I make it clear that have not gone into the merits of the case and all points are left open to be dealt with by the respondent nos. 2 and 4.
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.)