IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compliance with lease obligations is contingent upon proper legal recognition of heirs, and arbitrary actions by authorities can be challenged if they disregard procedural fairness.

JUDGMENT :

(Suvra Ghosh, J.) :

1. Since the subject matter of both the writ petitions is almost identical, they are taken up for consideration together and proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The fact which is not in dispute is enunciated hereinbelow:-

Ranajit Kumar Biswas, deceased predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, was granted lease in respect of a plot of land measuring about 4.1557 cottahs in premises no. AC-87, Saltlake, Sector- I, Kolkata – 700064 for a period of 999 years vide deed of lease registered on June 17, 1970. Possession of the premises was handed over to the lessee on December 11, 1970. Clause 2(6) (a) of the deed of lease contemplates construction of a building on the premises by the lessee within a period of three years from the date of possession or within such extended time as granted by the authority. The lessee passed away on August 10, 1973 and his widow also passed away on March 6, 1987.

3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that since the original lessee was issueless, his right, title and interest devolved upon the surviving heirs, i.e., the petitioners, upon his death. One of the surviving legal heirs Manojit Kumar Biswas has also expired. The said legal heir made several applications before the respondents seeking mutation of the names of the legal heirs in respect of the subject premises. A show cause notice was issued upon the original lessee Ranajit Kumar Biswas sometime in September, 1991 directing him to show cause as to why the premises should not be resumed on account of his failure to raise construction therein in terms of the deed. Upon receipt of the notice, the petitioners, by a letter issued on December 2, 1991, informed the authority that the original lessee had expired for which construction could not be raised within the stipulated time frame. They also requested the authority to inform them about the steps to be taken for remedy of such breach. The petitioners applied for mutation of the property in their favour on August 21, 1992 along with all relevant documents. Pursuant to several correspondences made between the parties, the petitioners were directed to pay the mutation fee by a letter issued by the authorities on September 4, 2001, which they paid. The petitioners were not in a position to apply for the requisite sanctions unless their names were mutated. Resumption order was issued against the petitioners on December 22, 2021 requesting the latter to hand over peaceful physical possession of the plot to the authority.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken this Court to a letter issued by the Urban Development Department, Government of West Bengal seeking submission of affidavits/certificates in connection with the application for mutation filed by the petitioners. Pending such consideration a show cause was issued by the authority in the name of the deceased lessee on March 15, 2011 under clause 4 of the deed of lease granting him opportunity to remedy the breach by starting construction on the demised land within six months from the date of notice upon obtaining sanctioned plan. In reply to the same, the petitioners, by a letter issued on September 7, 2011 requested the authority to take necessary steps for mutating the names of the legal heirs of the original lessee in order to enable them to take steps for raising construction in the demised premises. Mutation fee was also deposited by the petitioners in the meantime. Finally, the allotment was cancelled and the plot resumed by the respondents vide letter issued on December 22, 2021.

5. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the authority in Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v/s. U.T., Chandigarh and Others reported in (2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 130 in support of his contention.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that several show cause notices were issued upon the lessee for violation of clause 2 (6) (a) of the deed of lease despite which the lessee or