Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re: Smt. Uma Devi Mohata vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 28 September, 2011
Author: Soumitra Pal
Bench: Soumitra Pal
1
2011
W.P. 16223(W) of 2011
In re: Smt. Uma Devi Mohata ... 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 the name of the petitioner in respect of Plot No.555, Block No.AE, Sector-II, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064 in place and stead of Bimalendu Mazumder, since deceased, in view of the probate granted on 24th August, 2006 by the High Court at Calcutta in PLA Case No.180 of 2006.
It appears that one Bimalendu Mazumder, since deceased, was the lessee and the State of West Bengal was the lessor of the plot of land in question. On or about 31st December, 1991 the said Bimalendu Mazumder, since deceased, published his last Will and Testament in respect of the property as mentioned in the Will. The said Bimalendu Mazumder expired on 8th February, 1998. Thereafter the petitioner applied for probate in respect of the last Will and Testament of Bimalendu Mazumder before the High Court at Calcutta, which was granted by the High Court on 24th August, 2006 in PLA Case No. 180 of 2006. After the grant of probate, as it appears, the petitioner made a representation on 19th November, 2006 annexing all relevant documents for getting her name mutated in place of the said deceased testator and/or lease holder. Since the representation for mutating her name has 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 representation dated 19th November, 2006 filed by the petitioner for mutating his name in respect of Plot No.555, Block No.AE, Sector-I, Salt Lake City in his favour by passing a 2 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 or her representative 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 2nd December, 1971 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 or her legal representative 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.)