The court reinforced that failure to execute necessary agreements and comply with payment terms nullifies any claims to land allotment rights, even where intentions to pay exist.

JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. The mother of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Bela Rani Somaddar (since deceased) was allotted a Plot of Land with core house at Baishnabghata Patuli Area Development Project by Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority on August 8, 1985 with approximate area of land of 54 Square Meter with a price of Rs.18,000/-. In terms of the said allotment letter the allottee has paid Rs.3,000/- on 18.09.1985, Rs. 2,500/- on 14.02.1986 and Rs.1,500/- on 25.08.1986.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that after such payment, said Smt. Bela Rani Somaddar wrote a letter to the authority concerned on July 5, 1989 declaring her wish to share the Plot of Land jointly with her elder son, namely, Sri Shyamalranjan Somadder. Thereafter, the original allottee expired in the year 1994. The present petitioner being one of the son of the said allottee; applied to the KMDA so that allotment in his mother’s name cannot be transferred to his name. In terms of his letter regarding transfer of allotment, he was called by the KMDA and directed to submit the affidavit to be sworn by all legal heirs jointly before the ^1st Class Judicial Magistrate. Petitioner placed those documents but his prayer for transfer of the said allotment was not entertained. He again made a request to the authority for taking a decision. The authority issued a memo dated August 23, 2013 asking the petitioner to remain present in a hearing for the purpose of- a) non-payment of penalty for delayed payment and, b) transfer of name of owner of Plot. Thereafter, several requests and representations were made to the authority but the authority concerned has not responded any of the representations but had only issued the impugned memo on March 8, 2017 thereby cancelled the allotment in respect of plot in question.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner being one of the sons of the original allottee had made several representations with the authority. Moreover, the petitioner was attended the meeting as directed by the concerned authority for payment of penalty and for delayed payment and for transfer of the name of the owner of Plot. He attended the meeting but no decision was taken for a long time. After several representations the impugned memo was issued by cancelling the allotment.

4. He submits that the act and action of the concerned authority is arbitrary. The authority concerned has considered the case of the petitioner to transfer the Plot of Land in the name of the petitioner, but subsequently, they did not consider the same. He further submits that the authority concerned were aware of the fact that the Plot of Land can be transferred in the name of the petitioner who is the one of the son of the original allottee. He further submits that the petitioner by several letters and communications has already established his readiness and willingness to perform the obligations and duties to pay the penalty and dues according to the terms of the allotment letter. However, his prayer was not considered; hence this writ.

5. Mr. Satyajit Talukdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents authority submits that the allotment letter was issued in favour of Smt. Bela Rani Somaddar, mother of the present petitioner which includes specific stipulations; in terms of the stipulations though original allottee has paid three installments but thereafter she could not perform or appear before the concerned authority for execution of the said Deed of Lease.

6. He further submits that the authority concerned has categorically i