IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondent's application for long term settlement was not governed by the relevant notification, and the respondent did not have a legal relationship with the State Government in connection with the land, and therefore, no right had accrued in favor of the respondent.

JUDGMENT :

Apurba Sinha Ray, J.

1. The writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 purchased 4 decimal of land on 13.07.1990 by virtue of a registered Deed of Sale, from the recorded owner Calcutta Road Transport Co-operative Society Limited and has been running a petrol pump thereon under the name and style of “Tutul Fuelling Centre”. The said 4 decimal of land is adjacent to a government land measuring about 22 decimals comprised in Plot no. 5240. For the purpose of expansion of his petrol pump business the writ petitioner submitted an application before the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Hooghly for granting long term lease in respect of the said 22 decimals of land on 09.04.2012, which was received by the office of the addressee on 11.04.2012. As there was no response from the concerned authority, the writ petitioner again submitted a representation dated 29.08.2012 but in vain. Thereafter the writ petitioner filed an application under Section 10 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 before the Land and Land Reforms Tenancy Tribunal and the same was disposed of on 08.08.2013 by the Tribunal directing the DL&LRO Hooghly to dispose of the representation of the applicant within a period of four months from the date of communication of the order after giving opportunity of hearing to all interested persons and to pass a reasoned order.

1.1. As in spite of receipt of the said order the authority did not take any steps, the writ petitioner initiated contempt proceedings and subsequently during the pendency of such contempt proceedings the concerned authority intimated the Learned Tribunal that the authority recommended a proposal for granting long term lease /settlement of 17 decimals of land out of 22 decimals of land in Plot No. 5240 in favour of the writ petitioner and considering the same the Learned Tribunal disposed of the proceedings by an order dated 11.05.2015. It is also alleged that the above proposal was issued by the Learned Additional District Magistrate-cum-District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Hooghly in terms of the government allotment policy vide No. 6686-LP-1A-18/2012 dated 26.12.2012 and the said proposal for long term settlement was sent to the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Land and Land Reforms Department (respondent No. 3 herein) and it appears therefrom that the concerned authority recommended a proposal for granting long term settlement of 17 decimals of land out of 22 decimals of land in Plot No. 5240 in favour of the petitioner for 99 years against payment of salami of Rs. 9,87,589 and annual lease rent of Rs. 3119/-but the said proposal was kept pending since 29.04.2015 for approval.

1.2. As the said proposal was pending for a long time the writ petitioner submitted a representation dated 20.11.2020 to the DL&LRO Hooghly with a prayer for execution of long term lease in favour of the petitioner as per proposal dated 29.04.2015. But in spite of receiving the said representation, no reply was given to the writ petitioner. Finding no other alternative the writ petitioner filed a writ petition being WPA No. 135 of 2021 before a learned Single Judge of this Court for a direction upon the respondent authorities to grant approval to the proposal vide Memo No. IX-3/478/2489/S dated 29.04.2015 with a direction upon the DL&LRO Hooghly to execute the long term lease deed in favour of the petitioner. The said writ petition was heard by the Single Bench on 24.02.2021 and after hearing the parties the Learned Single Judge was pleased to pass an order:

“Although the petitioner was granted a recommendation by the Additional District Magistrate, Hooghly, for the purpose of a long term settlement of a piece of government land in favour of the petitioner, as long back as on April 29, 2015, the respondent no. 2 has not yet sanctioned such proposal or taken a decision thereon. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that such inaction on the part of the respond