Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
SHRIMATI NATHI DEVI KULTHIN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. 10267 (W) Of 1991
Decided On : 12/24/2002
LAND LEASE - MUTATION OF NAME - GOVERNMENT GRANTS ACT, 1895 - APPLICABILITY - LEASE DEED EXECUTED BY GOVERNMENT IN FAVOUR OF LESSEE - ABSENCE OF RESTRICTIVE CLAUSE IN RESPECT OF RIGHT OF LESSEE TO TRANSFER LEASEHOLD ESTATE - NO BAR ON LESSEE TO TRANSFER OR ASSIGN LEASEHOLD ESTATE TO THIRD PARTY.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner sought to mutate her name in respect of a plot of land leased by the Government of West Bengal to the original lessee in 1972. The original lessee had assigned and transferred his leasehold estate in the said plot of land in favor of the writ petitioner by a registered deed in 1986. The respondents, however, refused to mutate the name of the writ petitioner, contending that the Government Grants Act, 1895 applied to the lands in the Salt Lake area and that the lessees were not entitled to transfer their leasehold interest to a third party without obtaining express permission from the Government.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Government Grants Act, 1895 was not applicable to the leases of the present nature as the lease deeds were executed for valuable consideration and the Government was in the position of a landlord. The Court further held that there was no restriction, prohibition, or limitation imposed on the lessee from transferring or assigning his leasehold interest in the said plot of land and that the clause in the lease deed allowing transfer of the leasehold estate to co-share or co-sharers did not amount to a prohibition on transfer.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government Grants Act, 1895 applied to the leases executed by the Government in favor of the original lessees in respect of the plots in Salt Lake city extension area. 2. Whether there was any restriction, prohibition, or limitation imposed on the lessee from transferring or assigning his leasehold interest in the said plot of land.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Government Grants Act, 1895 was not applicable to the leases of the present nature as the lease deeds were executed for valuable consideration and the Government was in the position of a landlord. 2. There was no restriction, prohibition, or limitation imposed on the lessee from transferring or assigning his leasehold interest in the said plot of land and the clause in the lease deed allowing transfer of the leasehold estate to co-share or co-sharers did not amount to a prohibition on transfer.
Final Decision: The writ application was allowed and the Rule was made absolute. The respondents were directed to mutate the name of the writ petitioner in respect of the plot of land in question within a month from the date of communication of the order.
( 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. (C)the said lessee by a registered deed dated October 28, 1986 assigned and transferred his leasehold estate in the said plot of land in favour of the writ petitioner. The said document was registered in volume No. 328, at pages 1 to 12, being No. 13094 for the year 1986. (D)after execution of the said document dated October 28, 1986, the writ petitioner submitted a representation to the Secretary, Metropolitan Development Department, Government of West Bengal requesting for mutation of her name in respect of the said plot of the land. A reminder was, also, issued on behalf of the writ petitioner to the respondent No. 2 requesting for mutation of her name in respect of the said plot of land. As the respondents did not mutate the name of the writ petitioner in respect of the said plot of land, the writ petitioner approached this Court.
( 3 ) MR. Ranabir Mahapartra, learned advocate, appearing for the writ petitioner, argued that there was no bona fide reason and justification on the part of the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 2 not to mutate the name of the writ petitioner in respect of the said plot of land. Mr. Mahapatra draws my attention to the clauses of the said deed of lease dated March 3, 1972 and submitted that there was no prohibition on the part of the lessee to transfer his interest in the leasehold estate and as such the authorities concerned ought to have accepted the bona fide prayer of the writ petitioner for mutation of her name in respect of the said plot of land. Mr. Mahapatra in support of his contentions cited the decisions in the cases of Prabir Kumar Kar v. State of West Bengal and Ors. , reported in 1992 (2) CHN 289, Tarachand Dalmia v. State of West Bengal and Ors. , reported in 1994 (1) CHN 15 and Smt. Ajanta Basu v. State of West Bengal and Ors. , reported in AIR 1996 Calcutta 309. Mr. Mahapatra, accordingly, submits that the facts and circumstances of the present case are exactly identical and, accordingly, there was no reason not to mutate the name of the writ petitioner, particularly, in the absence of a provision in the original lease deed dated March 3, 1972 restricting transfer or assignment of the leasehold estat
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
