IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that acceptance of delayed payments by the State constituted a deemed extension of time for contract performance, reinforcing the obligation to execute lease deeds.

JUDGMENT :

HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to complete all formalities for execution and registration of lease deed in favour of the petitioner no. 1 company in respect of plot no. CJ 199A, Sector-II, Salt Lake, Kolkata-91 and CE 31, Sector-I, Salt Lake, Kolkata-64 and to put the petitioner no. 1 company in possession of both the plots.

2. The Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal Metropolitan Development Department issued a letter dated 28.8.1981 conveying that the Governor is pleased to sanction the grant of lease of 31.8453 cottahs in Block-CJ Sector-II in Salt Lake City to the petitioner no. 1 company for a period of 999 years on payment of salami at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per cottah for the purpose of construction of residential flats. Subsequently, by another letter dated 3.6.1984, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal informed the petitioner company that the Governor is pleased to offer a plot of land measuring 9 cottah in Block-CE in Sector-I in Bidhannagar by a lease for a period of 999 years on payment of salami at the rate of Rs.20,000/- only per cottah for the purpose of construction of their officers quarters. The writ petitioners claim to have deposited the amount as directed in the allotment letters dated 28.8.1981 and 03.6.1984. The writ petitioners by several letters requested the respondent authorities to execute and register the lease deeds. Several reminders were also given by the petitioner company. Sometimes in the month of May, 2013 the petitioner no. 2 came to learn that the respondent authorities have allotted plot no. CJ 199A, Sector-II, Salt Lake to Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation (for short “BMC”) for the purpose of construction of a swimming pool. Immediately thereafter, this writ petition was filed.

3. The said writ petition was moved on 24.3.2014 and an interim order was sought for. A Co-ordinate Bench refused to pass any specific order restraining the respondents from dealing with the land in question and directed the parties to exchange their affidavits.

4. The petitioner thereafter, filed a supplementary affidavit seeking to explain the alleged delay and latches on their part in approaching the Writ Court.

5. The State of West Bengal filed an affidavit-in-opposition denying the material allegations contained in the writ petition. It was specifically stated therein that the petitioners herein remained silent for a considerable period of time starting from 1981 till 2013 without showing any interest for execution of the lease deed. It was further stated therein that the BMC submitted a proposal before the Urban Development Department for allotment or sanction of plot no. CJ 199A in Sector-II for construction of swimming pool vide letter dated 7.6.2012. Thereafter BMC submitted a detailed drawing as well as the financial aspects for proposed swimming pool complex at CJ 199A, Salt Lake and the Urban Development Department agreed to give permissive possession in respect of plot no. CJ 199A in favour of BMC for construction of swimming pool subject to receipt of consent of BMC. BMC intimated their consent vide Memo dated 3.4.2013. It was also stated that the writ petition is barred by the law of limitation and also that writ petition to enforce the terms of a contract is not maintainable.

6. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner paid the amount on account of Selami in terms of the Memo dated 27.08.1981 and the Memo dated 16.01.1984. He further submitted that as directed by the Executive Engineer Design, the petitioner paid the cost of fixing boundary pillars. He submitted that on 25.02.1993 i.e., after the lapse of almost ten years from the date of allotment the petitioner company was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 41352/- towards the excess land in respect of plot no. CE 31 and the petitioner duly paid such amount. He further contende