Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This is to consider an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the writ petition' in short), inter alia, challenging inaction on the part of Secretary, Metropolitan Development Department, Government of West Bengal in not mutating the name of the writ petitioner in respect of plot No. 143, Block-AD appertaining to Sector-I of Salt Lake City.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the said writ petition are summarised as under:

(a) Government of West Bengal granted a lease, under a registered Deed of lease dated March 3, 1972, in favour of Lalmohan Bhattacharyay in respect of one plot of land measuring 3.0450 cottahs, be the land a little more or less, being Plot No. 143 in Block AD in Sector-I of the northern Salt Lake city extension area. The said deed was registered, in book No. 1, volume No. 33, at pages 16 to 22, being No. 1517 for the year 1972, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Cossipur-Dumdum. The lease was executed against selami of Rs. 8373.75 (Rupees eight thousand three hundred seventy three and paise seventy five) only and annual rent of Re. 1/- (Rupee one) only for the period of 999 years. One of the important in the said lease deed was Clause 8, which runs as under:
"In case of a lease in favour of two or more individual lessees jointly, any one of such joint lessees will have the right to transfer his/her share to the other co-share or co-sharers."

(b) On February 20, 1973 the Salt Lake Authority, delivered possession of the said plot of land to the said lessee. The said lessee obtained a sanctioned plan from the Salt Lake Authority dated January 12, 1980 for construction of a residential unit, but he could not complete the construction due to circumstances beyond his control.

4. Mr. Debasish Kargupta, learned advocate, appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that, as the transfer was made by the original lessee in favour of the writ petitioner without obtaining permission or consent from the respondents, the respondents authorities are within their rights not to mutate the name of the writ petitioner in respect of the said plot of land on the basis of the said registered document dated October 28, 1986. Mr. Kargupta submits that the Government Grants Act, 1895 applies to the lands in the Salt Lake area and the lessees are not entitled to transfer their leasehold interest to a third party without obtaining express permission from the Government. Mr. Kargupta, in his turn, cites an unreported decision of a learned Judge of this Court dated June 25, 2001 in W.P. No. 6840(W) of 2001 Mahadeo Prasad Agarwal and Ors. v. State of West Bengal. Mr. Kargupta, in his usual fairness, however, submits that the decisions cited by Mr, Mahapatra stipulate that there was no bar to mutate the name of the transferee in the absence of any provision restraining transfer and, further, submits that in the said decisions it has been laid down that the Government Grants Act, 1895 has no manner of application in respect of the leases executed by the Government with regard to the plots in Salt Lake city extension area. However, Mr. Kargupta heavily relied upon the said unreported decision and draws my attention to the observation of the learned single Judge of this Court that application of Government Grants Act, 1895 in such properties could not be excluded even if the document of transfer was a registered one complying with all the formalities of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

12. Accordingly, the writ application is allowed. The Rule is made absolute. Respondents are directed to mutate the name of the writ petitioner in respect of Plot No. 143 in Block AD Sector-I in Salt Lake city in favour of the writ petitioner within a month from the date of communication of this order.

No order as to costs.

Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, is to be supplied to the parties within a week from the date of making an application for the same.