Suppression of material facts disqualifies a litigant from obtaining any relief.

Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.

The primary challenge in this petition is directed against the communication dated 27.05.2015 issued by the Land Manager, Bidhannagar, Urban Development Department, Government of West Bengal being the respondent no.2, whereby permission has been denied to the petitioner to mortgage the leasehold right in premises number CA-34, Sector-1, Bidhannagar, Salt Lake City, Kolkata700064 (the plot). By the impugned communication the respondent no.2 had, inter alia, informed the petitioner that she is not the mutated lessee of the plot and as such a "No Objection Certificate" in her favour could not be granted.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the plot was leased to Parul Dutta (since deceased). By her last will and testament dated 12.08.1992 Parul Dutta had made and published her will bequeathing her right, title and interest in the plot in favour of the petitioner absolutely and permanently. Probate of the will was granted by this High Court in PLA No.87 of 2011. After grant of probate, the executor handed over the plot together with the two storied building standing thereon to the petitioner.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner applied to the Government of West Bengal for mutation of her name in respect of the plot. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application with the authorities. By a letter dated 03.10.2012, issued by the respondent no.2, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.16,11,900/- towards permission fees within the time stipulated therein. Pursuant thereto it is submitted that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.16,11,900/- in favour of the State Bank of India. In this connection, a copy of the certificate issued by the HDFC Bank on 17.06.2015 has been annexed to the writ petition. In the said communication, issued by the HDFC Bank it is stated that the cheque issued by the petitioner to the Appropriate Authority had been encashed on 12.04.2013. The petitioner also relies on a letter dated 11.03.2013 allegedly issued by the respondent no.2, inter alia, granting the petitioner the right to mutate the property in her name.

4. Subsequently, by a letter dated 20.10.2014, the petitioner was requested to deposit a sum of Rs.87,400/-, as fees for amendment/alteration of the assessment list of the Assessment Section of the Bidhannagar Municipality. In terms of that direction, it is submitted that, the petitioner had on 21.10.2014 deposited the sum of Rs.87,400/- in favour of the Assessment Department of the Bidhannagar Municipality. The petitioner furthermore, relies on a letter dated 29.10.2014, inter alia, informing the petitioner that pursuant to an order Memo No.4439-SL(AL) 6L-1299/68(CA-34) dated 11.03.2013 the amendment/alteration of the Assessment list in respect of the said plot in favour of the petitioner had been duly granted. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for creating a mortgage of the leasehold right in respect of the plot in favour of Deutche Bank to obtain a loan. By a letter dated 27.05.2015 which is the impugned communication the request for No Objection Certificate had been rejected by the respondent no.2 on the ground that the petitioner is not the mutated lessee of the plot and as such, the prayer for issuance of No Objection Certificate could not be considered.

5. Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the challenge to the impugned communication primarily on the ground that the petitioner is guilty of suppressing material facts in filing the instant writ petition. He placed strong reliance particularly on the communication dated 04.04.2013 being Annexure R-5 at Page-18 to the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.2. He also challenged the authenticity and veracity of the documents relied by the petitioner in the writ petition and submitted that there is not only a calculated and designed suppression of the material facts but also that the petitioner is guilty of making misleading and false state