IMPORTANT POINT
A valid lease must be executed and registered to confer rights; absence of such renders subsequent claims void.

JUDGMENT :

Aniruddha Roy, J.

Facts :

1. The writ petitioners have impugned the order dated December 30, 2014 passed by the respondent no. 2, Annexure P-12 at page 82 to the writ petition under which the claim of the father of the writ petitioners to record the assignment of lease in respect of plot No. A-11/321 at Kalyani (said plot) and for mutation was rejected. The original writ petitioner was the father of the petitioners.

2. During pendency of this writ petition, the father of the petitioners died and these petitioners being the sons of the deceased original petitioner were substituted and carried out the proceeding.

3. One Bimalananda Roy, the added respondent no. 3 (for short ‘Bimalananda’) on August 1, 1990 applied before the State authority for obtaining lease in respect of the said plot at page 39 to the writ petition. After receiving necessary selami from Bimalananda, the respondent no. 2 forwarded a document, Annexure P-1 at page 37 to the writ petition, to Bimalananda with a lease agreement. By virtue of the possession certificate, Annexure P-3 at page 44 to the writ petition, Bimalananda was put into possession after the necessary site inspection of the plot.

4. Thereafter, Bimalananda executed a document for transfer/assignment of lease dated October 22, 2001, Annexure P-6 at page 51 to the writ petition, in favour of Ardhendu Kumar Chakraborty, since deceased, being the father of the petitioners. The deceased father of the petitioners then was put into possession of the plot. The deceased father claimed to have constructed his dwelling house, where the present petitioners are dwelling.

5. The deceased father of the petitioners and thereafter the present petitioners applied for mutation of their names in respect of the said plot, mutation was refused by the respondent no. 2 through its communication dated June 6, 2011, Annexure P-9 at page 68 to the writ petition. The mutation was principally rejected on the ground that there was no lease in favour of the original allottee, namely, Bimalananda. Such rejection was challenged by the deceased father of the petitioners by way of a previous writ petition being WP No. 11300 (W) of 2011. Said writ petition was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench by its order dated August 28, 2014, Annexure P-11 at page 72 to the writ petition, directing the respondent no. 2 to consider the petitioners’ application for mutation and to dispose of the same with a reasoned order as directed therein.

6. Pursuant to the said order and in terms of the said direction of the Co-ordinate Bench dated August 28, 2014, the said issue was considered and the claim of the petitioners were rejected by the said impugned order dated December 30, 2014, inter alia, holding that the transferor, i.e. Bimalananda did not have any right on the plot in absence of lease deed and there were violation of conditions of allotment.

7. Challenging the said impugned decision this writ petition has been filed.

Submissions :

8. Mr. Debasish Chattopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners referring to the applications, Annexure-P5 at pages 47 to 49 to the writ petition submits that, prior to the assignment of lease by Bimalananda in favour of the deceased father of the petitioners, the original allottee applied before the State authorities seeking permission for such assignment in favour of the deceased father of the petitioners. Till date such applications had not been considered nor any permission was granted for assignment of the lease by Bimalananda in favour of the deceased father of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, since the State authorities sat idle on such applications for prior approval for assignment of lease, it was deemed by friction of law that, the State authority did not have any objection to such assignment and, accordingly, the lease was assigned by Bimalananda in favour of the deceased father of the petitioners.

9. On the strength of such deemed approval and on the stre