IMPORTANT POINT
The distinction between sale and lease under the Transfer of Property Act was crucial, as the respondent's leasehold rights limited its ability to execute a sale deed.

JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. The matter relates to the alleged inaction on part of the respondent/Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, to execute a sale deed in favour of the writ petitioner, for the property purchased (by her predecessor in interest), in response to an advertisement published by the said respondent and in lieu of due consideration money.

2. The respondent Authority published a brochure declaring its intention to dispose the particular landed property amongst the intending purchasers, by dint of execution of a deed of sale to each one of them, in lieu of stipulated consideration money. The mother of the writ petitioner (since deceased) had responded to such advertisement of the said Authority and obtained the property in her possession in 2003. Before that, in 2001, she had remitted the entire consideration money for the same as was stipulated.

3. On July 27, 2005, the petitioner’s mother had executed her last will and testament. The said immovable property was bequeathed in favour of the present writ petitioner. The mother of the petitioner died thereafter, on August 15, 2005.

4. Now it was the petitioner’s turn to toil hard. The writ petitioner moved her first case before this Court, to seek redress. In her case that is, W.P.No. 25324 (w) of 2006, the Court passed an order dated December 20, 2006, directing the writ petitioner to submit before the respondent Authority the succession certificate and also directing the respondent Authority to register the deed of conveyance, upon the writ petitioner submitting the succession certificate, within a stipulated period of time.

5. The writ petitioner obtained probate of the last will and testament of a deceased mother, that is, dated June 26, 2008. The same was presented before the respondent Authority on August 1, 2008.

6. A draft deed of sale, sent thereafter by the respondent Authority to the writ petitioner, could not have been settled till the year 2013, in spite of several communications made between the parties in the meantime, as allegedly the same did not contain necessary arrangements and proportionate share of the writ petitioner as regards the common space, etc., as a owner thereof and also was violative of the provisions of the applicable statutory provisions. The writ petitioner has contended that the said respondent Authority made endeavour to slap upon the petitioner, unauthorised “transfer fee” and also restrictions as regards alienation of the said property. She has contended that such draft deed of sale suffered from vague description of property, vague description as regards the area which butted and bounded the property and absence of necessary specifications as regards the common space, etc.

7. Allegedly, even after submission of the probate certificate, the respondent Authority had sought for succession certificate, which, the writ petitioner says that, would not be applicable in case of the immovable property of the petitioner.

8. Ultimately, the writ petitioner had received a letter dated, of February 19, 2018 by dint of which the respondent Authority informed the writ petitioner regarding execution of a lease deed in her favour, with respect to the concerned property, she being the only nominee of the recipient/purchaser of the property, that is her mother. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the said, insofar as, inspite of transferring the possession of the property to her deceased mother in lieu of due consideration money and with an agreed condition to execute a deed of sale in her favour, the respondent Authority had ultimately flouted the terms of a concluded contract entered between her deceased mother and the said Authority, for executing a sale deed in favour of the purchaser thereof. Thus the present writ petition has been filed.

9. Mr. Ray, who has represented the writ petitioner, has strongly relied on the information which was disclosed in the brochure released by the respondent. It has been submitted that the respondent A