Restrictive covenants in an indenture must be specifically stated, and in the absence of such a statement, the lessee derives right, title, and interest by reason of the indenture and is entitled to assign his right, title, and interest therein.

( 1 ) BOTH these writ applications involving same questions of law were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) A plot of land in Salt Lake was leased out to the predecessor-interest of the petitioners for a period of 999 years. The petitioner in W. P. No. 5291 (W) of 1997 has purchased the said lease by reason of a deed of assignment. The petitioner tiled application for mutating his name. As he has not heard for a long time from the concerned authority, a writ petition was filed in this court. and N. K. Mitra, J, directed that the said application of the petitioner be considered. By reason of the impugned order as contained in Annexure 'h' to the writ application, Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, rejected the said application on the ground that in terms of clause 2 (7) of the original lease deed as also the restrictive clauses contained in clauses 2 (8), 2 (11) and 2 (12) or the lease deed in respect of the lands in Salt Lake which was earlier withdraw, but was reimposed with effect from 21. 2. 86, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner has no right to transfer/assign the property in question in favour of the petitioner. It has been held: "thus it is crystal clear that by execution of the said deed of transfer/assignment on 27. 7. 87 the lessee not only violated clause 2 (7) of the original lease deed, but also violated clause 2 (8) which was deemed reimposed in the lease deed on 21. 2. 86 in the instant case. " The concerned respondent also referred to the Government policy and. held that such transfers are not permitted.

( 3 ) MR. Mahapatra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application. Learned counsel submits that grant of lease by the State in the Northern Salt Lake City Extension Area for a period of 999 years, will not be a grant within the meaning of Government Grants Act. and in any event, as there does not exist any restrictive covenant, the respondents are bound to mutate the petitioner's name. Reference in this connection has been made to Mrs. Bhakti Mendel v. State of West Bengal and Ors. , reported in CLT 1988 (1) HC 422 and a decision of Chatterjee, J, in Tarachand Dalmia v. State of W. B. and Ors. , reported in 1994 (1) CHN 15.

( 4 ) IT appears from annexure 'a' to the Writ petition No, 5291 (W) of 1997, that a lease was granted by the Governor, State of West Bengal in favour of one Haripada Ghosh by an indenture dated 26. 4. 71. in W. P. No. 5292 (W) of 1997 also, a similar lease was granted by an indenture dated 27. 11. 94. It is therefore, evident that at the relevant point of time when the said indentures were executed by the Governor. State of West Bengal, the purported re-imposition of clauses 2 (8), 2 (11) and 2 (12) did not find place therein. Clause 2 (7) of the deed reads thus:"the lessee shall not sub-divide or sub-let the demised land or the building to be constructed without the consent in writing of the Government first had and obtained and the Government shall have the right and be entitled to refuse its consent at its absolute discretion. "

( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, clauses 2 (8), 2 (11) and 2 (12) of the lease deed executed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner does not contain any restrictive clause. Such purported restrictive clauses, as it appears from the impugned order were imposed with effect from 21. 2. 86. A restrictive covenant purported to have been imposed in an indenture by circular letter or by a classificatory order cannot have any retrospective effect and thereby any right which has already been vested to the lessee cannot be taken away. Furthermore, keeping in view the fact that the indenture in question is governed by the Government Grants Act, parties are bound by the conditions imposed therein and not by any subsequent general order which might have been issued by the State, in as much as, such a gener