Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Suresh Bajaj & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.) on 18 June, 2012
Author: Soumitra Pal
Bench: Soumitra Pal
1
18.6.2012
Sl. No.34 WP 9684(W) of 2012
(Suresh Bajaj & anr. -vs- State of West Bengal & Ors.)
Mr. L. C. Behani
Ms. Papiya Banerjee (Behani) .......for the petitioners
Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharya ...for the State
Affidavit of service filed today be kept on record.
In the writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a
direction upon the respondents, particularly on the Land
Manager, Government of West Bengal, Urban Development Department, Salt Lake City, Kolkata, the respondent no.4 to mutate their names as joint lessees in respect of premises no. BC-78, Sector- I, Salt Lake City, Kolkata. Submission has been made that though representations were furnished before the respondent no.4 on 3rd August, 2009, on 25th November, 2010 and on 15th July, 2011, however, no action has been taken. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
It appears that Monoranjan Bhowmik was the original lessee and the State was the lessor. Pursuant to a Deed of Settlement dated 11th May, 1973 executed by Monoranjan Bhowmik, the premises in question was transferred and assigned to Sudhir Ranjan Bhowmik. Consequently, the name of Sudhir Ranjan Bhowmik was mutated. Sudhir Ranjan Bhowmik constructed the ground floor in the premises, as per the sanctioned plan. On 26th December, 2001 Sudhir Ranjan Bhowmik executed a Deed of Gift in favour of his son, Sanjoy Bhowmik in respect of the premises. Thereafter, the name of 2 Sanjoy Bhowmik was mutated, who constructed the first floor of the building. Thereafter, by a Deed of Assignment dated 10th June, 2009 Sanjoy Bhowmik transferred and assigned the premises along with the building in favour of the writ petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners made applications before the respondent no.4 to mutate their names. It is submitted by Mr. Behani, learned senior advocate for the petitioners that as there is no bar in transferring the plot of land, appropriate order may be passed.
Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the State submits that the respondent no.4 may be directed to consider the representations filed by the petitioners.
Having heard Mr. Behani, learned senior advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the State 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 filed on 3rd August, 2009, on 25th November, 2010 and on 15th July, 2011 before the said respondent by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law, to be communicated to the petitioners 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 petitioners and after verifying the records and after causing an inspection of the site in question upon notice. At the time of hearing, the petitioners shall furnish documents in support of their contentions and shall also furnish documents, if called for by the said 3 respondent and the said respondent shall deal with the same in his reasoned order.
I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter and all points are left open to be dealt with by the respondent no.4.
Since the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission without calling upon the respondents to file affidavits controverting the allegations made therein, 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.)