Authorities have an obligation to refund lapsed deposits to the rightful claimants, and any inaction or delay in doing so without any logical reasoning amounts to a lackadaisical attitude and can be challenged through legal remedies.

JUDGMENT :

Shekhar B. Saraf, J.

1. The petitioners in the instant writ petition being Shri Suvendu Kumar Goswami, Shri Shyamal Goswami, Shri Ardhendu Kumar Goswami have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the inaction on part of the respondents in releasing the lapsed deposit amount of Rs 66,000/-as per the order No.52 dated March 4, 2008 passed by Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Garhbeta in Pre-emption case No.4 of 2004.

2. The petitioners pray that the said petition appeared before this Hon’ble Court under the heading ‘Motion’ when the counsel of the Petitioner could not attend the Court and hence the petition was dismissed for default by this Hon’ble Court. Subsequently, CAN No. 1301/2017 was filed by the petitioner for restoration and recalling the order of dismissal dated January 10, 2017. On April 17, 2019, CAN No. 1301/2017 was allowed and causes shown by the petitioner for restoration were accepted as sufficient by Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak. As a result, the order of dismissal dated January 10, 2017 was recalled and WP No. 14312(W) of 2012 was restored to its original file and number.

FACTS

3. I have enumerated the facts of the instant writ petition below:

a) The petitioners state that they have purchased a land measuring about 1.5 Decimal in respect of Plot No. 136, under Mouza – Quabat, in the Village of Goaltor, District-Paschim Medinipore.

b) One Ram Sundar Ponda along with others filed a Pre-emption case being No. 4 of 2004, against the petitioners and in the said case, the petitioners duly deposited the value of the land i.e. Rs 66,000/- in the Treasury Department, Midnapore, Government of West Bengal.

c) The petitioners state that during the pendency of the said Pre-emption case, both the parties settled the dispute out of Court and a compromise petition was filed before the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Garbetah and in order being No.52 dated March 4, 2008, the said pre-emption case was disposed of wherein the petitioners were given the liberty to withdraw the said deposit.

d) The petitioners further state that the Order dated March 4, 2008 was passed, but the Learned Court failed to discharge the release of the said amount on the grounds that the said amount has been deemed to be a lapse deposit.

e) The Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Garhbeta, vide letter dated June 23, 2008 intimated the Learned District Judge, Paschim Medinipur, to take steps for refund of the lapse amount of Rs. 66,000 to the petitioners. On the same date, an application for sanction of such amount in favour of the petitioners was also sent to the Accountant General, Government of West Bengal by the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, that confirmed the receipt of such deposit and the said letter was received by the Accountant General.

f) The petitioners, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the noncompliance of the respondent authorities in not refunding the said lapsed deposit amount to the tune of Rs 66,000 along with interest in favour of the petitioners, to which they are very much entitled to, have moved the said petition.

g) In compliance with directions of this Hon’ble Court, a report was submitted by the Registrar General on July 30, 2013 wherein it was informed that the refund of the Lapsed Deposit must be as per Rule 737 of the Civil Rules and Orders, which is enumerated below :-

‘Rule 737 – When payment of a deposit lapsed under Rule 734 is required by a person entitled thereto, application shall be made through the District Judge, who shall examine the claim, and, if he finds it correct, shall forward an application in Form No. (A) 4 to the Accountant-General. Several deposit numbers may be included in a single application, if they are payable to the same person. The Accountant-General’s letter of authority, when received shall be noted against the items in the Clearance Register (or original register in the case of a B deposit), so as to prevent a second application. T