JUDGMENT :

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the State and its functionaries challenging an order dated 22.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition, being WPA 23221 of 2013 filed by a partnership firm, namely, M/s Modern Designs Associates (hereinafter referred to as the firm) and its two partners assailing inter alia an order dated 02.05.2013 passed by the appellant no.4 quashing an allotment letter dated 23.09.1996 pertaining to allotment of four cottah of land in Plot no.39, Block – CK in Sector II at Bidhannagar (hereinafter referred to as the said land) for a period of 999 years on payment of provisional salami of Rs. 30,000/- per cottah.

2. Records reveal that after issuance of a letter of allotment dated 23.09.1996 in respect of the said land and acceptance of the salami amount several queries were raised by the appellants and lastly by a letter dated 17.10.2012 the appellant no.4 directed the firm to furnish copies of the public notice published in a local newspaper regarding the retirement of three partners and a copy of deed of retirement of partnership executed and registered between the outgoing i.e. retired partners and continuing partners. Aggrieved by the said letter dated 17.10.2012, the firm preferred a writ petition being W.P. No. 6847 (W) of 2013 which was disposed of by an order dated 12.03.2013 observing inter alia that nothing in Section 32 of the Partnership Act, 1932 requires the execution of a deed of retirement and its registration by the partners in the firm concerning the retirement of a partner therein and directing the competent authority to give a decision ignoring the said condition. Pursuant thereto, the appellant no.1 passed an order dated 02.05.2013 quashing the letter of allotment dated 23.09.1996 observing inter alia that the said allotment was a provisional one on the basis of the liberal land policy of the 1990s when the land premium was very low and that after such provisional allotment 17 years have elapsed and in the midst thereof the new land allotment policy has come into effect from 26.12.2012 and as per the said policy, the said land cannot be allotted to the firm which would prevent the State to gain largesse of about Rs. 2 crore. Challenging the said order the firm preferred the writ petition being WPA 23221 of 2013 which was disposed of by the order impugned in the present appeal setting aside the order dated 02.05.2013.

3. Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the appellants argues that the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order failing to appreciate that the allotment of the said land by the letter dated 23.09.1996 was provisional in nature and did not confer any indefeasible right upon the firm. The said letter was merely an offer. Possession of the said land was not handed over and no lease deed was executed.

4. According to him, the learned Single Judge did not consider the arguments as advanced on behalf of the appellants and disposed of the writ petition being oblivious of the facts that the firm itself did not respond to the queries in time and as such did not take any steps alleging delay on the part of the appellants towards execution of the lease deed even after payment of the salami amount. About three years after issuance of the letter of allotment on 23.09.1996, the partners of the firm by a letter dated 30.11.99 to the appellant no.3 wanted to know as to ‘whether it will make any difference to you and whether it will effect the allotment of land to us, if we convert our partnership firm into a company’. Subsequent thereto, three partners of the firm retired but copies of the public notices pertaining to such retirement were furnished only after the appellant no. 4 sought for the same by a letter dated 17.10.2012. Due to efflux of time in the midst thereof, the firm was responsible and for such laches, the State cannot be deprived of the prevailing market rate of the said land. In the year 1996, the rate